Genzyme, a drug company under the international group Sanofi, is stopping the production of the drug alemtuzumab. The reason? They plan to rebrand it later and sell it as much as 20 times the original price.
Here's why. Alemtuzumab is currently known as a drug for leukemia. But after various conclusive tests, it has proven to be effective for patients with Multiple Sclerosis, even at its advanced stage. It is even more effective and far less expensive than existing prescribed drugs for MS. Because of this, doctors are prescribing it off-label. This is the opportunity that Genzyme hopes to cash on.
This is ethics staring at businessmen in the face. To profit from medicine is bad enough. To profit from medicine whose patients are always limited by time due to their disease is just plain irresponsible and criminal. The people should express their disapproval of this and the government should do its best to regulate this and other unethical practices.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
Read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, and also more relevant Bad Pharma by the same author. There was an excerpt of Bad Pharma on bbc and the shit that pharma companies pull is simply hideous. Unethical, but not illegal.
As people pointed out though, big pharma has always behaved in this manner.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
So that makes it okay to be complacent and act like nothing's wrong? How dare you discourage someone so smugly who is trying to raise awareness of evil. Your attitude is the reason shit like this gets swept under the rug. Shame on you.
On October 14 2012 02:56 sushiko wrote: Read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, and also more relevant Bad Pharma by the same author. There was an excerpt of Bad Pharma on bbc and the shit that pharma companies pull is simply hideous. Unethical, but not illegal.
As people pointed out though, big pharma has always behaved in this manner.
Which is why legality has, and always will be, completely irrelevant to the morality of any situation.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
So that makes it okay to be complacent and act like nothing's wrong? How dare you discourage someone so smugly who is trying to raise awareness of evil. Your attitude is the reason shit like this gets swept under the rug. Shame on you.
Lol....
I think you're misunderstanding me. All I was saying is they do shit like this on a daily basis. How am I acting complacent or pretending nothings wrong? I'm not trying to downplay their unethical bullshit. Shame on me? I say shame on you.
Nothing is under the rug in this issue. Everyone knows that the health industry is a For Profit business now. Meaning they will do anything they can to make profit. Prescription costs, procedure costs, meeting the doctor costs...
Everyone is aware of it, nothing the general public can do about it, other than try to change health care laws. So nothing the general public can do about it.
This is basically what happens when the people whom the sick depend on to not die need to make sure that their quarterly earnings reports look good or be fired.
On October 14 2012 02:56 sushiko wrote: Read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, and also more relevant Bad Pharma by the same author. There was an excerpt of Bad Pharma on bbc and the shit that pharma companies pull is simply hideous. Unethical, but not illegal.
As people pointed out though, big pharma has always behaved in this manner.
On October 14 2012 03:08 thrawn2112 wrote: I don't like how the general forum has been taken over by all the top news items on reddit
Don't see the problem as long as it brings up good points to discuss. Reddit pretty much has every news article posted there so it's not strange that the things people want to talk about make it here also.
There is a reason they're allowed to do this. Creating and eventually marketing any drug is a huge investment and for any company to think about making another new drug, they need to cash off their period of market exclusivity. The drug is intellectual property and companies should be able to turn a profit on what they create to a certain extent. Unfortunately as helius mentioned (and the relevant news article), pharma companies will try to find an edge any way they can, working their way around IP laws to cut a larger profit at the expense of the consumer.
Genzyme is an Ameican company heaquartered in Cambridge Massachusetts USA.
It is owned by Sanofi S.A which is headquartered in Paris France.
Direct your complaints to the appropriate government. Non American and Non French can approach their local governments. However, expect your foreign governement to not do anything. The only thing that foreign governments CAN do is to pass regulations so restrict the markup on pharmaceuticals.
Also keep in mind that pharmaceutical companies have massive budgets for lobbying US government officials.
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 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
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
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 03:22 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 03:22 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 03:22 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 03:22 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.
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 03:22 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 03:22 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 03:22 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 03:22 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?
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.
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.
What? I don't understand...
Either there is a patent on the old drug or not. If there is no patent, then anyone can produce it generically and doctors can still prescribe it any way they like. If there is a patent, they can charge whatever they like without branding. Doesn't add up.
Sounds like the REAL problem here is some sort of terrible counter-intuitive government licensing and not capitalism.
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.
Aah, but you see, now we have reached the crux of the problem.
I'll agree with you that the patent system is the problem, and that these sort of things happen because the patent system we currently use is ineffective and out-dated.
People here are crying about companies doing things that are perfectly legitimate, and talking about how evil big pharma is.
The argument we should be having is about reforming patent laws. Anything else is a distraction from the real problem, and doing a real disservice to the people that need/want these drugs.
Capitalism isn't the problem, not even in the slightest. The patent system, I'll agree, is broken and needs a good fixing.
So why don't we talk about the real problem? Why don't we talk about real solutions?
Because screaming "fuck the patent system" doesn't get people as excited as "fuck capitalism." For a forum that regularly prides itself as "above average" on the intellectual scale, they sure are quick to fall into the trap of populism and other such nonesense.
Focus on the real problem, discuss real solutions, that is how you fix the problem. If you get flat tire, fix the tire, don't complain that evil-auto is out to get you.
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.
Aah, but you see, now we have reached the crux of the problem.
I'll agree with you that the patent system is the problem, and that these sort of things happen because the patent system we currently use is ineffective and out-dated.
People here are crying about companies doing things that are perfectly legitimate, and talking about how evil big pharma is.
The argument we should be having is about reforming patent laws. Anything else is a distraction from the real problem, and doing a real disservice to the people that need/want these drugs.
Capitalism isn't the problem, not even in the slightest. The patent system, I'll agree, is broken and needs a good fixing.
So why don't we talk about the real problem? Why don't we talk about real solutions?
Because screaming "fuck the patent system" doesn't get people as excited as "fuck capitalism." For a forum that regularly prides itself as "above average" on the intellectual scale, they sure are quick to fall into the trap of populism and other such nonesense.
Focus on the real problem, discuss real solutions, that is how you fix the problem. If you get flat tire, fix the tire, don't complain that evil-auto is out to get you.
Does the patent system seriously cause a 15-20x hike in cost for re-branding? O.o
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...
People in general are evil, think about it; you wouldn't kill someone to save your self? If no that because your at home in your neutral mind set. Put in the correct situation tho...
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...
People in general are evil, think about it; you wouldn't kill someone to save your self? If no that because your at home in your neutral mind set. Put in the correct situation tho...
If people in general are evil then we must have a bad definition for evil.
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...
People in general are evil, think about it; you wouldn't kill someone to save your self? If no that because your at home in your neutral mind set. Put in the correct situation tho...
How is it evil to try to stay alive? Worst. Example. Ever..
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.
Sounds like good business. Every other company does the same thing, only fair Big Pharma gets a piece.
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
well this was actually no accident, its common knowledge. these products are called generic drugs and the only weapon for a pharma company to prevent this and keep their research costs covered are international patents. dont forget that these companies often spent billions for researching such drugs over the years and its only fair that the production of generic drugs are forbidden for 10-15 years in most countries by law. thats of course bad for third world countries where people often dont have the money to afford these meds. in case of HIV the prophylaxis would with "Truvada" at the moment costs over 10.000€ per year for a single human. thats not even affordable for western countries, the costs for treatment of people already diseased with HIV are even a bit higher.
you have to see the point that pharma companies often have high research costs for meds that in the end dont hit the market, this money is lost then. so they have to build up reserves to cover that, too. thats why these copanies cant just sell meds for prices to only cover the research. they even cant just sell these meds cheaper in third world countries, because they would just get reimported then. these companies would just not be able to keep their research up when they would be forced to sell their meds cheaper. thats the brutal truth. the only thing western countries can do is buy meds for these countries as donation, but people are really egoistic when it comes to their own tax money. not the pharma companies, but even me and you. its easy to mark the pharma companies as bad guys who should pay, but reality shows its face when the people should give their own money as charitable donations. on a global scope life is still a fight for survival, even in these times of appearent abundance.
So maybe the reason they are increasing the price is they believe the demand for the drug will increase greatly due these recent findings in MS treatment. Before people reported that the drug also works in MS there was less demand for the drug, so Genzyme charged less for what they produced. Now they predict a lot more people will want to buy their drug, so why shouldn't they sell it at a higher price? It isn't price gouging.
When more time passes the drug will be made in generic form, which will drive the price down. Also, with regard to "ethics vs, business..." The company is not driven by the same moral obligation to heal that doctors and hospitals are driven by.
I wouldn't place everything sorely on the heads of one aspect of this gigantic monstrosity we call the healthcare industry. The whole thing is a mess. Big Pharm jacks prices because R&D has a ridiculous cost attached to it before a drug even hits the market (many of them don't so wasted investment). If the US had proper insurance that wasn't so bloated and was universal then prices of drugs wouldn't matter much.
On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it.
Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug.
On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it.
Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug.
But this drug can't be on patent, it's been around over 20 years.
On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it.
Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug.
But this drug can't be on patent, it's been around over 20 years.
From what I remember, it involves changing something really minor about the drug, and repatenting the "new and improved" drug.
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote: Hate the system, but that's just how it works.
Actually, the correct course of action would be to change the system. Merely hating it seems rather inefficient.
Sure, that's what everyone wants to do, but honestly good luck with getting off of the market system as it is without changing many things. The United States isn't a pure capitalist system, of course, as there is a government that implements regulations, but good luck getting them to make pharmacy a public or quasipublic good (or something along those lines). The government is there to fix market failures, among other things, and there are no massive market failures in pharmacy that need to be addressed. It could be argued that the privatization of pharmacy is a driving force of innovation in drug research etc.
People pay the price they're willing to pay for goods and services (or the range thereof). Supplies want to maximize their producer surplus and consumers want to maximize their consumer surplus, and if there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter, they just won't consume the goods or services. But they basically are. Clearly it's an extremely complicated system with many more factors going into it, but in a nutshell, it's just the market system, and good luck getting off of that at the moment.
In any event, you haven't seen inefficient until you've seen a government try to mess with capitalism and try to fix stuff.
On October 14 2012 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why another company can't simply make the drug generically and sell it.
Drug patents entail periods of exclusivity during which no other company can produce generic versions of the drug.
But this drug can't be on patent, it's been around over 20 years.
From what I remember, it involves changing something really minor about the drug, and repatenting the "new and improved" drug.
Rinse and repeat every five years.
So then the old drug without the minor change is still off patent and can still be produced.
I'm just speculating here after reading more about the drug, but here's what I got so far.
Alemtuzumab's was first mentioned in a publication in 1992 (first known as CAMPATH-1H). Now, in the US the patent lasts for 20years starting from the time before clinical trials. Now, 20years from then is 2012, which seems like an appropriate time for this company to "renew" their patent another 20 years. This is probably the underlying reason why Genzyme waited so long to rebrand the drug even after the discovery of its use as an off-label drug for MS.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this isn't a new phenomena and has been done before.
On October 14 2012 04:23 jdseemoreglass wrote: So then the old drug without the minor change is still off patent and can still be produced.
Technically, yes.Realistically. no.
But I forget the mechanism behind that.
I believe if you license the drug under a different name, it qualifies as a new discovery and under a different patent.
Absolutely not. That would clearly defeat the point of the patent system. Brands have nothing to do with it. They are merely a method of recognition to consumers to associate the particular brand with quality.
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?
are you out of your damn mind? how can you compare a disease fucking killing you to traveling? or are you just doing it for the shit and giggles. Actually bread and a lot of necessities like that are regulated by governments through laws, and health care should not be put on the same level as any product of the entertainment industry. I for one think no one is trying to dictate the creators but, on the other hand, pointing out that they are dictating prices to irrational levels which is putting people at risk. It's the greed that's disgusting not that they would like to profit. (I wouldn't think they were selling it with net losses beforehand either.)
On October 14 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote: B) There is some horrible, nonsensical government patent law that should be getting our attention instead of the "evil corporation."
Sure. It's silly to expect a corporation to act ethically. In fact, joint stock companies are structurally prohibited from acting ethically. We should always assume that corporations will as unethically as possible, both in terms of legal actions and in terms of dodging enforcement.
Here's an excerpt from the book. Not much can be applied to this situation from this excerpt, but I think understanding how big pharma operates is very important in assessing ethics vs profits vs law. It's how you profit that draws the line between ethical and unethical. And to clarify, unethical behavior can be completely legal.
In my opinion, Genezyme is just practicing good business. Ethically, pulling the drug now is a dickmove to put it blunt as it limits the accessibility for patients. The title makes the issue be more about costs, but to me, its about restricting drug access right now because of its off-label use. Pulling the drug might have something to do with preventing generics being made (if patent expired).
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.
The whole drug has to be rebranded, it needs new trials, they have to brace themselves for lawsuits, and they probably have some fun patent stuff to work out. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new drug. Yes, it's going to make it much more expensive.
And if you're not ok with it being 20x more expensive is there a multiple that would make you happy? I have a hunch that most people are pissy that it's more expensive period, they don't know enough about drug manufacture and development to really bitch about the multiple.
A lot of people here don't know how the pharmaceutical industry works. It takes around 12 years and $1 billion to bring a drug to market. When you pay for a drug, you aren't paying for the material, you are paying for all the failed drugs that they tested along the way. Pharmaceutical companies invest massive amount of money into incredibly long term plans by business standards. This high risk environment is why you pay so much for drugs.
On average when a drug target is identified they must screen up to 1 million different chemical compounds to get that "hit". From there they mave have up to 1000 "lead" molecules. Then they optimize that lead and may end up with 10-200 compounds. From there they submit maybe 5 to preclinical trials. Then a few of those might make it to the enormously expensive clinical trials. If the drug fails at this point then the company could take a hit of hundreds of millions of dollars lost. The reality is that over 95% of pharmaceutical projects fail.
So lets say a pharmaceutical company has brought a drug to market after over a decade and almost a billion dollars. They want to see maximum return on their risky investment, and that means they have a few options:
1) Repackage it with another drug to give some sort of synergistic effect.
2) Change the enantiomeric composition of the drug. Drugs are often "chiral" meaning their mirror images are different and will give different biological effects.
3) Change the method of administration (inhaler, injection, etc).
The catch? In order to patent ANY of these changes the drug company must once again go through the rigorous process of drug validation by government regulators. Contrary to the popular belief here that these companies can just slap on a new label and make more money, they must demonstrate that this "new" drug gives some sort of enhanced therapeutic effect.
And of course they would pursue this. They have just invested a billion dollars in this drug when they had no idea if it would actually work out. You want to complain about drug companies? Fine. But at least understand WHY they do what they do. It is mostly related to the enormous amounts of money they must spend to bring a drug to market, meaning once they get a blockbuster drug they (rightfully) milk it for all its worth. If you take away their ability to make money on their high risk investment then they may not be able to make any new drugs in the first place.
Should the government maybe have a larger hand in pharmaceuticals to ensure adequate supply of unprofitable drugs? Sure, I would be thrilled with that. But I don't think we should meddle with the pharmaceutical industry. They are a business like any other, and just because they make drugs doesn't mean they are uniquely required to be charitable with their products. If the alternative is that no drugs get made at all, I'd rather have the current system.
I got this little bit saved I read on a random forum a long while back when I was interested in this kind of stuff. It's very enlightening honestly.
On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem
Aint saying if it's good or bad, just saying how it is. The system is fucked up, it's not the corporations fault though.
LIFE is fucked up, not the system. Life is what gives people deadly and horrible diseases. The fact that we have a system which is capable of dealing with a large number of these is a good thing.
On October 14 2012 04:23 jdseemoreglass wrote: So then the old drug without the minor change is still off patent and can still be produced.
Technically, yes.Realistically. no.
But I forget the mechanism behind that.
I believe if you license the drug under a different name, it qualifies as a new discovery and under a different patent.
Absolutely not. That would clearly defeat the point of the patent system. Brands have nothing to do with it. They are merely a method of recognition to consumers to associate the particular brand with quality.
Not true for drug IP. Patents are there so that the company that invested millions/billions into research are able to recoup the costs without competition. Licensing a new drug for a different target, albeit with essentially the same components, is enough to extend the patent. Might not be 20year patent, but it can and has been done. Pfizer and GSK has done it, don't have the sources on hand but I'm sure a quick google search will yield something. I'm not an expert on this, so perhaps I'm not understanding it fully.
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.
The whole drug has to be rebranded, it needs new trials, they have to brace themselves for lawsuits, and they probably have some fun patent stuff to work out. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new drug. Yes, it's going to make it much more expensive.
And if you're not ok with it being 20x more expensive is there a multiple that would make you happy? I have a hunch that most people are pissy that it's more expensive period, they don't know enough about drug manufacture and development to really bitch about the multiple.
With the rebranding, can they repatent? If not, why are they going through the trouble of rebranding? I mean if it costs so much money that they are forced to increase the price 20x and its already been on the market for 20 years... why would they do that? Surely generics will be on their way in a short time.
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.
The whole drug has to be rebranded, it needs new trials, they have to brace themselves for lawsuits, and they probably have some fun patent stuff to work out. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new drug. Yes, it's going to make it much more expensive.
And if you're not ok with it being 20x more expensive is there a multiple that would make you happy? I have a hunch that most people are pissy that it's more expensive period, they don't know enough about drug manufacture and development to really bitch about the multiple.
With the rebranding, can they repatent? If not, why are they going through the trouble of rebranding? I mean if it costs so much money that they are forced to increase the price 20x and its already been on the market for 20 years... why would they do that? Surely generics will be on their way in a short time.
Yes, that's the point, they don't want the generics. They can take an off-label use and make it on-label, resetting the clock. That's what this is about.
Medication is already has the highest markup rate.. dumb that they find this necessary. My dad has MS, was diasgnosed on my 2nd birthday, just asked him if he took this, and he doesn't. Which is good considering the amount of medications he takes, the price of everything monthly is beyond ridiculous (thank god for benefits)
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.
The whole drug has to be rebranded, it needs new trials, they have to brace themselves for lawsuits, and they probably have some fun patent stuff to work out. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new drug. Yes, it's going to make it much more expensive.
And if you're not ok with it being 20x more expensive is there a multiple that would make you happy? I have a hunch that most people are pissy that it's more expensive period, they don't know enough about drug manufacture and development to really bitch about the multiple.
With the rebranding, can they repatent? If not, why are they going through the trouble of rebranding? I mean if it costs so much money that they are forced to increase the price 20x and its already been on the market for 20 years... why would they do that? Surely generics will be on their way in a short time.
Because currently, when it's prescribed for MS it's technically illegal. It needs to be rebranded so patients can legally use it. If it didn't go through the rebranding then using the generic for that purpose would still be iffy legally I believe.
On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem
I'd love to hear your solution.
Well, identifying a problem has validity independent of proposing a solution.
But
I'd like to see government directly involved in the development of pharmaceuticals.
Crazy, I know.
I had a feeling that was the solution. So billions of dollars in investment courtesy of taxpayers, and then if the drug is a success we... sell it at a loss? And if the drug is NOT a success, we simply lose billions?
It can certainly work to SOME degree, but the problem as always is that there is no real accountability and nothing to prevent waste on an absolutely massive scale. Business has a profit incentive to not waste billions on what is likely but not guaranteed to be a dead end. It's about efficiency, as much as people hate that term.
Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically?
On October 14 2012 04:50 sam!zdat wrote: Why illegal? Off-label uses are not illegal... (are they?!)
No, I don't think it's illegal. It's a very common practice with tons of drugs.
On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem
I'd love to hear your solution.
Well, identifying a problem has validity independent of proposing a solution.
But
I'd like to see government directly involved in the development of pharmaceuticals.
Crazy, I know.
edit: the fact that drugs get advertised is also a major problem related to our free market system of pharma
Let me say I'm personally for a lot more government intervention in a lot of sectors, but the last thing I want is the bureaucratic nightmare that is the United States government getting their hands on the drug industry. Developing drugs is a massive investment that may, in most cases, give absolutely no returns and be a money sink. I'd rather billionaires burn their money doing it than me spending tax dollars for the government to do it.
However, perhaps the government could subsidize the private companies so they can produce these drugs at a lower cost and then sell them at a subsequently lower cost.
This isn't really unheard of 20 times is a bit much but it's not totally unheard of to have one medicine cost alot more then the same medicine it's just used for another purpose, esp when dealing with insurance. Really drug companies pull alot of bullshit esp with slight changes to their formulas in order to prevent generics and hold onto patents for a couple more years. They are also known to not research cures but treatment plans, unless a cure can be milked for a long period of time. They are also known to once a patent isn't held on their name brand drug they pull back production and introduce into the market a similar drug and say it's better even if it's ever so slight.
On October 14 2012 04:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically?
On October 14 2012 04:40 Fruscainte wrote:In order to patent ANY of these changes
Here's the problem
I'd love to hear your solution.
Well, identifying a problem has validity independent of proposing a solution.
But
I'd like to see government directly involved in the development of pharmaceuticals.
Crazy, I know.
edit: the fact that drugs get advertised is also a major problem related to our free market system of pharma
Let me say I'm personally for a lot more government intervention in a lot of sectors, but the last thing I want is the bureaucratic nightmare that is the United States government getting their hands on the drug industry. Developing drugs is a massive investment that may, in most cases, give absolutely no returns and be a money sink. I'd rather billionaires burn their money doing it than me spending tax dollars for the government to do it.
However, perhaps the government could subsidize the private companies so they can produce these drugs at a lower cost and then sell them at a subsequently lower cost.
Yeah, whenever I talk about government doing things I'm not talking about our failing state doing things. I mean more theoretically. Should have been more clear. I think you could invent a system that would work better. I don't necessarily mean the government does everything directly and assumes all risk (@JD)
On October 14 2012 04:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically?
Because of intellectual property law...
The drug is OFF PATENT!!!
If they repatent it, it has to be a different drug in some way. The old drug is still off patent. You can't just perpetually repatent the same exact chemical.
On October 14 2012 04:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: Anyway, this still doesn't address the questions I brought up on the previous page. Why can it not be produced generically?
Because of intellectual property law...
Except nobody explained why they can't produce the old drug generically and continue to use it "off-label".
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.
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.
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.
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 re-branded 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?
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.
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.
If medicare pays for brand name instead of generics... I will be confused and angry..
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.
If medicare pays for brand name instead of generics... I will be confused and angry..
I tutored a student recently for her pharmaceutical ethics class (knew nothing about it, just read her teacher's notes and explained them, the girl was a bit slow), and there is all kinds of shady shit that goes on the way insurance works. This is related to the fact that the US has extremely high administration costs for insurance compared to single-payer systems.
This article is written to condemn the company -_- like mentioning layoffs at the end despite protests had nothing to do with the article even... and that comes from a whole host of other reasons
ok so a few things that I want clarified like is the drug off patent for leukemia; in that case yes its 20x more expensive, but generics sell for significantly less than the original price of the drug. even if it isn't off patent its probably not a blockbuster drug because it probably is just another drug used in cocktails. The point being that the original price of Lemtrada is not exceptionally high such that 20x the price would put it above the range of prices that drugs on patents will sell for.
consider this: the average cost to develop a drug is 800 million to 2 billion dollars. ok make the pharmaceuticals stop abusing the system. maybe you can help pitch in the 2 billion. And thats only the successful drugs. Billions more are spent in drug discovery and clinical trials. Most drugs fizzle. So every drug that comes out has a double handful more brethern that tens to hundreds of millions was spent on. So maybe you want to give a hand in the pharma business now.
And what they are doing is patenting the use of the drug for MS. And that entails costly clinical trials and various regulatory procedures that ensures that the drug is sold legally for MS. Again they could do this out of the kindness of their hearts but they already sank a billion dollars developing it.
you think that big pharma is raking in cash whereas its actually in a pretty trying period right now. its really easy to look at the price of the pills and not actually appreciate how much investment is into it. its like telling apple to give away free phones because the iphone will make peoples lives better.
what all you outraged peopel should be looking at is healthcare reform...
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 03:22 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 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 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 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 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...
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.
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?
Do you understand the patent system, at all? Criminalizing generics is the exact same thing as saying "even after my patent expires I'm still the only one allowed to make them under my branding system".
So not really, but I am very curious if you can dig up any cases that prove what you are implying, a blanketing ban on generic medicines in ACTA signing countries. Along with the so called "death" of WTO and WIPO that that wikipedia article claims as well.
Yeah, within 20 years, if you're not very wealthy and don't qualify for federal/state/national assistance, you'll pretty much be unable to afford medications for even more treatable conditions.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
So not really, but I am very curious if you can dig up any cases that prove what you are implying, a blanketing ban on generic medicines in ACTA signing countries. Along with the so called "death" of WTO and WIPO that that wikipedia article claims as well.
So it's fine to continuously encroach on said territory with increased intensity as long as it's an ongoing process with an aim which is to achieve the end goal of a blanket ban? You can't be serious.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
Are you serious? Do you even realize how much time and money it takes to invent, test and approve a new drug? Most new medicines take up to 20 years to go through the trial process - which is expensive.
In this case, this obviously doesn't apply completely as they're just using an already approved drug and I am not trying to defend them for this, but saying that medicine should be free is naive.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Except those cases are rare and far between, compared to the amount of medicine that we got via the profit motive. War and capitalism are some of the greatest driver of technology, medicine or otherwise.
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.
There's no doubt in my mind profiteering is their number one priority in this matter but it's still their decision and priorities are subjective, who are you to tell them theirs are wrong? They choose money over well being over random people. Perhaps that makes them terrible, greedy or simply business oriented, I don't know, but saying their priorities are wrong because they doesn't match yours is not OK.
By 'them' i mean the ones who are in charge of this decision, I obviously have no hard feelings toward the actual scientists or other people working under them.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Mythical? Hardly. Sure, things are more complicated but our knowledge and equipment has improved drastically as well. I don't buy the argument that if people aren't allowed rape consumers for huge sums of money then we would have no growth of society. This is a perfect example of why people are starting to once again grown angry at the market system and capitalism in general.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
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.
There's no doubt in my mind profiteering is their number one priority in this matter but it's still their decision and priorities are subjective, who are you to tell them theirs are wrong? They choose money over well being over random people. Perhaps that makes them terrible, greedy or simply business oriented, I don't know, but saying their priorities are wrong because they doesn't match yours is not OK.
By 'them' i mean the ones who are in charge of this decision, I obviously have no hard feelings toward the actual scientists or other people working under them.
Defending an unethical framework to profiteer is morally wrong, it doesn't matter what economical structure you operate under.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
Are you serious? Do you even realize how much time and money it takes to invent, test and approve a new drug? Most new medicines take up to 20 years to go through the trial process - which is expensive.
In this case, this obviously doesn't apply completely as they're just using an already approved drug and I am not trying to defend them for this, but saying that medicine should be free is naive.
Of course, this is what health insurance is for.
Free? Nothing is free. I do believe funding, research, production, and distribution should be a job of the State or state sponsored entities.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
When your government doesn't subsidize pharma's they grow and become a big lobbying power that can price like a monopoly. In Britain and Canada they have regulations as to the price of pills. Most pills in Canada are 40-50 dollars (for major ones) knocked down in price.
In the U.S., a 30-day supply of Diovan (valsartan), a medication used to treat high blood pressure, cost $73. In Canada, the cost was $40.
In the U.S., a 30-day supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), a medication used to help lower cholesterol, cost $86. In Canada, the cost was $51.
In the U.S., a 30-day supply of Flomax (tamsulosin), a medication used to treat an enlarged prostate (BPH), cost $110. In Canada, the cost was $38.
Multiple Reasons for Cost Differences
The reason that prescription medications are cheaper in Canada is complex and there are several factors that contribute to the lower costs.
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.
Indeed. Helping people cure themselves for a cost of a meal in restaurant and people still complain.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote: Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Reminds me of the good old times that BoxeR talked about when "eSports" was just a bunch of kids on PC bangs, with no money and all that.
Keep in mind that it was before pharmaceutical laws and profiteering / monopoly laws were even developed so there was actually less legal restraint on these companies.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Complexity and principle are completely separate entities, just because a process has gotten more complicated doesn't mean that degrades the principle.
On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote: Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Reminds me of the good old times that BoxeR talked about when "eSports" was just a bunch of kids on PC bangs, with no money and all that.
Keep in mind that it was before pharmaceutical laws and profiteering / monopoly laws were even developed so there was actually less legal restraint on these companies.
I was being sarcastic. Despite whatever problems with have with pharmaceutical companies, they do actively develop drugs, because they have to. It is much more reliable than waiting for that right person at the right time to make the right discovery by a large margin.
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Complexity and principle are completely separate entities, just because a process has gotten more complicated doesn't mean that degrades the principle.
It makes the principle more difficult to realize.
edit: theory and praxis, my friend. theory and praxis
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Antitrust law should also be applied in a scenario where patent holders are the only ones allowed to make a drug and where they intend to eliminate alternatives and generics.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Complexity and principle are completely separate entities, just because a process has gotten more complicated doesn't mean that degrades the principle.
It makes the principle more difficult to realize.
edit: theory and praxis, my friend. theory and praxis
There are people who directly attack the principle itself, I'm not arguing the execution.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes, he was angry because there was not yet intellectual property as we know it. He thought there SHOULD be (as a product of emerging bourgeois consciousness), but there was NOT. The first (edit: at least, some of the first important) intellectual property laws were introduced at the Congress of Vienna in the early 19th century (contemporary with Beethoven)
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
The Paris Convention is over 100 years old, not THAT new.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
The Paris Convention is over 100 years old, not THAT new.
You and I have very different ideas of "new"
edit: here we see a perfect symptom of the problem with our culture...
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
I always simply look at more... Universal countries and they have lower prices because similar to milk products or "needed" products as it was described to me they are regulated at a certain price. This is why some 100 dollar 30pill bottles in the States sell for 30-40 in Canada (and to my knowledge Britain/France as well).
The issue is that America doesn't want to regulate anything so companies have alomst a monopolistic power to price and if you're dying you have quite the incentive to buy the product.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
The Paris Convention is over 100 years old, not THAT new.
You and I have very different ideas of "new"
With respect to modern laws on the industrial age 100 years is relatively new seeing as this age only really kicked into gear 100-200 years ago depending on who you ask it ranges through there.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Antitrust law should also be applied in a scenario where patent holders are the only ones allowed to make a drug and where they intend to eliminate alternatives and generics.
What place does antitrust law have within the scenario where they don't patent a compound manufacture proces (like coca cola) and just monopolize it? If it is patented they automatically are susceptible for analyses and competing products as the proces or compound is made public.
Eliminating alternatives is no problem if it is through legal (albeit dubious) means. Generics fall under the patented scenario because if the compound manufacture proces is unknown or the effective substance itself they are unable to be created anyway.
As such if a company decides not to patent and monopolize it it's fine. If they patent it competition gets enabled it's fine as well. If it is patented and noone decides to try and replicate the proces or compound it is probably not worth it either way (many medications are only profitable when monopolized due to insane development costs) and then the problems regarding pricing start. But hey, that's the system .
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
And the patent/copyright system is currently rigged to be completely abused. If companies wont stand up against this broken and unfair system then no one will.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
And the patent/copyright system is currently rigged to be completely abused. If companies wont stand up against this broken and unfair system then no one will.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote: Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
Let's view it in the context of today's time then. Pharmaceutical companies are the one of the largest profiting industries with one of the largest profit margins in the world. The R&D / Testing / Release cycle is indeed extremely long and often companies only have a 5 year window out of their patent holding period to profit from the drug, but if you actually look at the returns ratio it's still absurdly high, drugs often gross in the tens of billions.
Generic drug production as well as drug production and sales across boarders are restrained by laws which are in direct principle opposition of the aforementioned "Free to make profits" principle that many argue pharmaceutical companies can operate under, so they are free to make as much of a profit as they can yet protected by law from foreign or even subsidiary interest in other countries / regions from competition. Barring governments from negotiation of drug / vaccine prices even in times of crisis is also a right given above the rights of any other private profiting organization when there are no alternatives.
If a specific market is controlled only by a single available substance and alternatives are removed it is a breach of antitrust / competition law. The implication being that said substance will become available in the future, yet there is ongoing effort to criminalize generic medicine and eliminate that availability.
Arguing that a certain economical or societal system grants immunity to companies OR individuals OR governments to profiteer against common human interests is an international issue for all of humanity, not a domestic one. I'm not saying that legal action would be taken in this scenario, simply that the reaction and moral outrage is warranted.
On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people. History is history. They are interesting, and there are things we can learn from them, but we should not treat it like gospel.
On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote: I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
If the company management does not do it's best towards increasing shareholder value (read: profit), said management will be replaced by people who will, simple as that.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
It's more potent in America. Americans accept "liberty" and "freedom" and pay out the ass for these things, they prefer to drop 6grand a year on healthcare and then another x amount on overpriced pharma products well the rest of the civilized world drops 2-3grand on taxes for these things and moves along with their day paying x/2 amount for pharma products.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people.
Please don't have children
edit: the problem with you is that you don't know when you live
edit: what do you mean, treat "history like gospel." I have no idea what that means.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
It's more potent in America. Americans accept "liberty" and "freedom" and pay out the ass for these things, they prefer to drop 6grand a year on healthcare and then another x amount on overpriced pharma products well the rest of the civilized world drops 2-3grand on taxes for these things and moves along with their day paying x/2 amount for pharma products.
Uhm, the medical companies doesnt give two shits about whether government or private enterprises pay for their medicines, just as long as someone does.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Antitrust law should also be applied in a scenario where patent holders are the only ones allowed to make a drug and where they intend to eliminate alternatives and generics.
What place does antitrust law have within the scenario where they don't patent a compound manufacture proces (like coca cola) and just monopolize it?
A pharmaceutical in this case is classified as a necessity not a luxury, a process that manufactures a luxury which has numerous parallels and alternatives shouldn't be classified in the same way as a necessity. I'm not an expert on the antitrust law of the region so I refrain from commenting on that, but it's my guess that such a distinction is drawn. Also to add to that there are regulations across borders and regions for the prices of the same substance so regional antitrust laws do apply in the scope of international trade.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
I would have laughed much harder if you used cancer as an example.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
What about nothing? Surely it too has something to do with society.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
I would have laughed much harder if you used cancer as an example.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
And the patent/copyright system is currently rigged to be completely abused. If companies wont stand up against this broken and unfair system then no one will.
Look at your government. That's the establishment you should expect to balance and regulate corporate practice. Companies are like children, always testing the boundaries of their parents (government) patience and rules. Corruption and lobbying practices obviously undermine this but lets leave that out of this discussion as that's a different tale to tell.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
It's more potent in America. Americans accept "liberty" and "freedom" and pay out the ass for these things, they prefer to drop 6grand a year on healthcare and then another x amount on overpriced pharma products well the rest of the civilized world drops 2-3grand on taxes for these things and moves along with their day paying x/2 amount for pharma products.
Uhm, the medical companies doesnt give two shits about whether government or private enterprises pay for their medicines, just as long as someone does.
Doesn't work that way. The government puts a price on the amount they can sell for instance in Canada there is medicine cap. Government says "You can either sell it to this point or not sell it at all". No pharma is going to lose 30million customers, thus they drop it to the 40 instead of 80 price Americans pay.
Works with Milk in Canada as well or rather "essential" (I used needed before) products. But for this, we also pay higher taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Personally I like the 40-50 dollar savings on my medical products over the 5-6 bucks on cigarettes.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Ok, but you were saying we should go back to the good old days when somebody invented penicillin and it just leaked out in the public domain... That's what I was objecting to
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people.
Please don't have children
edit: the problem with you is that you don't know when you live
edit: what do you mean, treat "history like gospel." I have no idea what that means.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
On October 14 2012 03:08 thrawn2112 wrote: I don't like how the general forum has been taken over by all the top news items on reddit
Don't see the problem as long as it brings up good points to discuss. Reddit pretty much has every news article posted there so it's not strange that the things people want to talk about make it here also.
And this is nothing new, it's always been this way. Not sure why he's making this a big deal now.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Ok, but you were saying we should go back to the good old days when somebody invented penicillin and it just leaked out in the public domain... That's what I was objecting to
No I wasn't, not at all, it's just a precedent that has been set that profiting organizations and different nation state bodies could act in unison against maximal profit principles for some other ulterior goal.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
What about nothing? Surely it too has something to do with society.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people.
Please don't have children
edit: the problem with you is that you don't know when you live
edit: what do you mean, treat "history like gospel." I have no idea what that means.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
And in functional healthcare systems it's the healthy public who does for people in need, I don't have problems with that.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
Not entirely true, software companies work in a non-needed industry when it comes to survival, supply/demand dictate their prices where if they overprice the demand drops (excluding Apple I suppose) but the demand for medical treatment will never go away so regulations are imposed to halt companies from over pricing their product.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
What about nothing? Surely it too has something to do with society.
Don't try to out sophist me son
Like GlaxoSmithKline gobbling up pharmaceutical patents, I will not leave any absolute untouched!
On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote: I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
If the company management does not do it's best towards increasing shareholder value (read: profit), said management will be replaced by people who will, simple as that.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
Not entirely true, software companies work in a non-needed industry when it comes to survival, supply/demand dictate their prices where if they overprice the demand drops (excluding Apple I suppose) but the demand for medical treatment will never go away so regulations are imposed to halt companies from over pricing their product.
These medical devices that are used to research and cure people, they run on software aswell you know. Just one of the many things which are essential to survival and require software these days.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
Ofcourse it's a bad thing, but it's just how it is and how it always has been.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
The problem is that in countries like the US, where "free market" polices are often contradicted by government granted monopolies and subsidies for early developers, the amount you pay is significantly higher than what other people in other nations pay.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.[/QUOTE]
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.[/QUOTE] Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.[/QUOTE] No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.[/QUOTE] And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely true, software companies work in a non-needed industry when it comes to survival, supply/demand dictate their prices where if they overprice the demand drops (excluding Apple I suppose) but the demand for medical treatment will never go away so regulations are imposed to halt companies from over pricing their product.[/QUOTE] These medical devices that are used to research and cure people, they run on software aswell you know. Just one of the many things which are essential to survival and require software these days.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
Ofcourse it's a bad thing, but it's just how it is and how it always has been. [/QUOTE]
In this I agree, companies that sell software that directly supports pharma corporations deserve the same Government intervention and regulation but most software companies aren't raising their prices 20x to turn a profit (excluding Apple again T.T).
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote: Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
Whoa. source?
- Terrell on Patents, 8th edition edited by J R Jones, London (Sweet & Maxwell) 1934. - E Wyndham Hulme, The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law, Law Quarterly Review, vol.46 (1896), pp.141-154.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
imo they can rename it and sell it for a higher price but they should lose their patent that everyone can produce it(new product=old products patent doesn´t coount)
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Well certain countries are founded with specific principles which are written into their constitution that can not be overturned with out wide scale social action, so it's not so much a "those who follow it are also responsible" issue, it's an issue of where legal authority lies and whether the majority of the populous are in consensus.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x.
Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from?
Many many first world nations pracitce regulation on pharma companies and I have yet to see them going "We can't make that extra billion, we're shutting the doors and moving into make up products!"
Is there any proof to your statement, has any company ever stopped making its product because France or Canada or Britain are regulating their pricing on the population?
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Well certain countries are founded with specific principles which are written into their constitution that can not be overturned with out wide scale social action, so it's not so much a "those who follow it are also responsible" issue, it's an issue of where legal authority lies and whether the majority of the populous are in consensus.
I would argue that a country founded on fighting suppression of rights on an ethical basis could see the irony in not doing the same because of a piece of paper.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
However said legislation is being actively affected by the companies themselves through the lobbying system, pharmaceutical companies pay out millions each year to lobby for these specific scenarios and laws so there is a direct legal connection.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
I completely agree with this statement, it's up to the government to legislate and regulate essential products. Human greed is the biggest issue with capitalism.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
Actually, in terms of US judicial precedent, corporations are more full fledged adults rather than children.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
Actually, in terms of US judicial precedent, corporations are more full fledged adults rather than children.
With rights well and above any human being and subject to government protection if they lose and all the rights to profit with in free market principles when they apply, yea we know it's just a metaphor.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules. In that case, blame the rules.
As I said, the moral discussion is another one and hardly deserves to be had in any case. It is immoral, as simple as that.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to? Individuals are rarely capable of affecting legislation in the same manner and often it's illegal to support legal change in monetary means.
On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote: [quote] New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to?
You are acting like lobbying is just a $10M price tag on changing a law any way you feel like.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x.
Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this.
On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from?
Simple logic and understanding of capital flows. I am investor myself and I know many others. I want to invest in good businesses and good businesses means profiable businesses with solid growth prospects. Goverment meddling with the pricing power of an industry is a spectacular way to lose attention of investors, money these people have to invest will simply go towards ventures with higher probability for an outsized profit. Examples of this are everywhere.
On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote: [quote] New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to? Individuals are rarely capable of affecting legislation in the same manner and often it's illegal to support legal change in monetary means.
There is a word for this in my world. Corruption. Accepting compensation for legislating preferably for a single party whos interests do not coincide with that of the general public is simply being corrupt.
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. Too much drugs are being made with only profit in mind and not human health at all. There are many examples where pharma is researching for profit and not curing, and that isn't beneficial to a society at all.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to?
You are acting like lobbying is just a $10M price tag on changing a law any way you feel like.
If an individual is barred by law to attempt the same thing yet a corporate entity is not, that exclusivity itself is a problem.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
Actually, in terms of US judicial precedent, corporations are more full fledged adults rather than children.
I am aware of this, but this does not change the metaphorical comparison I am drawing with regards to behavior. It only reinforces the fact that the problem lies with the system intended to regulate this kind of behavior and practice.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to? Individuals are rarely capable of affecting legislation in the same manner and often it's illegal to support legal change in monetary means.
There is a word for this in my world. Corruption. Accepting compensation for legislating preferably for a single party whos interests do not coincide with that of the general public is simply being corrupt.
It's ongoing in many countries, they are legalizing the illegitimate. And it does apply in the scope of the discussion regarding pharmaceutical companies.
On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote: [quote] Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to? Individuals are rarely capable of affecting legislation in the same manner and often it's illegal to support legal change in monetary means.
There is a word for this in my world. Corruption. Accepting compensation for legislating preferably for a single party whos interests do not coincide with that of the general public is simply being corrupt.
It's ongoing in many countries, they are legalizing the illegitimate. And it does apply in the scope of the discussion regarding pharmaceutical companies.
Absolutely, and I find it disturbing in the extreme.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Yeah indeed, I cannot see any government being able let alone willing to venture into a high investment R&D sector. But yeah it would be the only solution to put a stop to this for 99%. As long as it remains a private enterprise profit will remain the deciding factor and since profit equals survivability in that sector means it justifiably remains so.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
Actually, in terms of US judicial precedent, corporations are more full fledged adults rather than children.
I am aware of this, but this does not change the metaphorical comparison I am drawing with regards to behavior. It only reinforces the fact that the problem lies with the system intended to regulate this kind of behavior and practice.
I'm curious what you think is the actual problem in this case. I'm skeptical and still think the main article this whole discussion is based on is rather uninformed and biased and doesnt really cohere with the active IP legislation (ACTA effects post-ratification not withstanding).
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
Non private manufacturing entities are not exactly well known for being particularly efficient (with some very rare exceptions). Thats what removing the profit incentive does.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules. In that case, blame the rules.
As I said, the moral discussion is another one and hardly deserves to be had in any case. It is immoral, as simple as that.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was called "MS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand". I didn't realize the argument was limited to IP law.
EDIT: Besides, we don't need an IP lawyer here to tell us its legal. That is as apparent as whether or not it is moral or not.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x.
Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this.
On October 14 2012 06:25 Jago wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:16 Jago wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:
On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote: [quote]
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from?
Simple logic and understanding of capital flows. I am investor myself and I know many others. I want to invest in good businesses and good businesses means profiable businesses with solid growth prospects. Goverment meddling with the pricing power of an industry is a spectacular way to lose attention of investors, money these people have to invest will simply go towards ventures with higher probability for an outsized profit. Examples of this are everywhere.
But it has never happened yet. I asked for a specific example in which a government went "You can't price your shit at 120 dollars a bottle" for essential life saving pills and their stock crashed, there business tanked. I have no issue right now going to my store and buying the same products everyone else can but why are mine 40 and Americans 80? Because my government practices ethics over profit in fundemental cases.
The demand for medical treatment will never go away, investing in medical treatments will never go away becasue people will always pay. The debate is on whether pharma compnaies should make more than the GDP of some countries by over pricing required products or be held at a more reasonable multi billion dollar range?
This is regarding health care, but pharma is similar in every way. + Show Spoiler +
#1 The chairman of Aetna, the third largest health insurance company in the United States, brought in a staggering $68.7 million during 2010. Ron Williams exercised stock options that were worth approximately $50.3 million and he raked in an additional $18.4 million in wages and other forms of compensation. The funny thing is that he left the company and didn't even work the whole year.
#2 The top executives at the five largest for-profit health insurance companies in the United States combined to receive nearly $200 million in total compensation in 2009.
#3 One study found that approximately 41 percent of working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.
#4 Over the last decade, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen from about 38 million to about 52 million.
#5 According to one survey, approximately 1 out of every 4 Californians under the age of 65 has absolutely no health insurance.
#6 According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States. Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.
#7 Profits at U.S. health insurance companies increased by 56 percent during 2009.
#8 According to a report by Health Care for America Now, America's five biggest for-profit health insurance companies ended 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion.
#9 Health insurance rate increases are getting out of control. According to the Los Angeles Times, Blue Shield of California plans to raise rates an average of 30% to 35%, and some individual policy holders could see their health insurance premiums rise by a whopping 59 percent this year alone.
#10 According to an article on the Mother Jones website, health insurance premiums for small employers in the U.S. increased 180% between 1999 and 2009.
#11 Why are c-sections on the rise? It is because a vaginal delivery costs approximately $5,992 on average, while a c-section costs approximately $8,558 on average.
#12 Since 2003, health insurance companies have shelled out more than $42 million in state-level campaign contributions.
#13 Between 2000 and 2006, wages in the United States increased by 3.8%, but health care premiums increased by 87%.
#14 There were more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies that made over a billion dollars in profits in 2008.
#15 Each year, tens of billions of dollars is spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the United States alone.
#16 Nearly half of all Americans now use prescription drugs on a regular basis according to a CDC report that was just released. According to the report, approximately one-third of all Americans use two or more pharmaceutical drugs, and more than ten percent of all Americans use five or more prescription drugs on a regular basis.
#17 According to the CDC, approximately three quarters of a million people a year are rushed to emergency rooms in the United States because of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs.
#18 The Food and Drug Administration reported 1,742 prescription drug recalls in 2009, which was a gigantic increase from 426 drug recalls in 2008.
#19 Lawyers are certainly doing their part to contribute to soaring health care costs. According to one recent study, the medical liability system in the United States added approximately $55.6 billion to the cost of health care in 2008.
#20 According to one doctor interviewed by Fox News, "a gunshot wound to the head, chest or abdomen" will cost $13,000 at his hospital the moment the victim comes in the door, and then there will be significant additional charges depending on how bad the wound is.
#21 In America today, if you have an illness that requires intensive care for an extended period of time, it is ridiculously really easy to rack up medical bills that total over 1 million dollars.
#22 It is estimated that hospitals overcharge Americans by about 10 billion dollars every single year.
#23 One trained medical billing advocate says that over 90 percent of the medical bills that she has audited contain "gross overcharges".
#24 It is not uncommon for insurance companies to get hospitals to knock their bills down by up to 95 percent, but if you are uninsured or you don't know how the system works then you are out of luck.
#25 According to one recent report, Americans spend approximately twice as much as residents of other developed countries on health care.
On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote: [quote] New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules. In that case, blame the rules.
As I said, the moral discussion is another one and hardly deserves to be had in any case. It is immoral, as simple as that.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was called "MS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand". I didn't realize the argument was limited to IP law.
EDIT: Besides, we don't need an IP lawyer here to tell us its legal. That is as apparent as whether or not it is moral or not.
It does not have to be. But one cannot have a discussion on the moral/ethical merits of the case at the same time as venturing into the reasons as to why the scenario can exist in the first place. If you would, you would automatically enter into a discussion about the morality of law itself. As such it is important to note which discussion one is having.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote: [quote] New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.
Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules. In that case, blame the rules.
As I said, the moral discussion is another one and hardly deserves to be had in any case. It is immoral, as simple as that.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was called "MS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand". I didn't realize the argument was limited to IP law.
EDIT: Besides, we don't need an IP lawyer here to tell us its legal. That is as apparent as whether or not it is moral or not.
If you would actually take the effort to read my carefully phrased posts I would not have to repeat myself but it seems the need does arise. That it is legal is obvious, but the majority of people do not know and subsequently fail to understand how such a scenario can exist and come to be. As such it is important to explain the system behind the occurance so people are informed and can have a proper discussion about the relevant aspects of the case.
As I explicitly stated three times now, twice in response to one of your posts, the moral and legal discussions are seperate topics and should be treated as such.
Responding to a legal argument with a moral one is irrelevant and absolutely useless. They remain seperate things. If you have a problem with the morality of the legal argument look no further then the political and legislation system behind that and criticize that. But again, that is a different discussion alltogether.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote: 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.
Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote: 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.
Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
There's a market for it, how is it not a consumer good? That it is crude and absolutely "not cool" as you put it should be beyond obvious to anyone with even the faintest moral compass.
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote: 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.
Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
As has been stated over and over again in this thread, it feels like you are leaving out where these medicines are coming from. Companies pour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in research to make safe and effective drugs. If a company doesn't expect to get money back why would they invest?
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
This will not and cannot happen. There's just too many examples of inefficient running of sectors in Canada that makes my point. People will be battling for union votes instead of for profit. Ideally, it should be private, but with proper government regulations to set its bounds.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
This will not and cannot happen. There's just too many examples of inefficient running of sectors in Canada that makes my point. People will be battling for union votes instead of for profit. Ideally, it should be private, but with proper government regulations to set its bounds.
Just disagreement on the implementation methods, there are precedents of functional systems in almost every configuration.
I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote: I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
You are about right. No wonder the drugs are expensive when they only have 25 years to make up that cost before generics can copy their drug.
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote: I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
Alot of drugs actually take longer development cycles than that due to the testing / marketing phase taking upwards of 5 years. What people are objecting to is not the original cost of the pharmaceutical, but the fact that a vital usage of it has been found then the company is potentially eliminating the possibility for individuals to access them with out alternative to live.
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point.
Then we disagree on this, as I regard medication to be a private interest for the individual (barring general outbreaks and pandemics, but here the generalized medication exceptions on patent law kicks in, see Thailand and South Africa for example and the Doa Convention on it.). General healthcare is in the public interest and that it is implemented to a certain degree of general satisfaction. The way of implementation, aka private business automatically removes it from having the public interest at heart and results in the situation where they aren't tied in any meaningful relation from my perspective.
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote: I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
Alot of drugs actually take longer development cycles than that due to the testing / marketing phase taking upwards of 5 years. What people are objecting to is not the original cost of the pharmaceutical, but the fact that a vital usage of it has been found then the company is potentially eliminating the possibility for individuals to access them with out alternative to live.
This does not make sense, as it would be destroying their own market. I'd be amazed if there hasn't gone extensive research in what the existing healthcare systems and general income can support with regard to potential drug costs. The price is undoubtedly based on the results of that.
On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x.
Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this.
On October 14 2012 06:25 Jago wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:16 Jago wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:
On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from?
Simple logic and understanding of capital flows. I am investor myself and I know many others. I want to invest in good businesses and good businesses means profiable businesses with solid growth prospects. Goverment meddling with the pricing power of an industry is a spectacular way to lose attention of investors, money these people have to invest will simply go towards ventures with higher probability for an outsized profit. Examples of this are everywhere.
But it has never happened yet. I asked for a specific example in which a government went "You can't price your shit at 120 dollars a bottle" for essential life saving pills and their stock crashed, there business tanked. I have no issue right now going to my store and buying the same products everyone else can but why are mine 40 and Americans 80? Because my government practices ethics over profit in fundemental cases.
The demand for medical treatment will never go away, investing in medical treatments will never go away becasue people will always pay. The debate is on whether pharma compnaies should make more than the GDP of some countries by over pricing required products or be held at a more reasonable multi billion dollar range?
If you want a specific example of goverment pricing policies preventing growth and stagnating the economy, you need to take a close look at Argentina: lacking the proficiency to extract and refine their own oil, they had to invite large foreign oil companies. As soon as those ventures got off the ground, they then proceeded to slap them with pricing caps on oil sold within the country because the goverment deemed the pricing excessive.
As a result, basically all investment from the oil companies in Argentina stopped, because it makes no economic sense for them to spend money investing inside Argentina for a low return when they can invest for a higher return elsewhere. As a result of that, Argentina oil output is in the shitter with no improvement in sight, resulting in less tax revenues collected, resulting in less money for the budget, less jobs, etc etc etc
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote: This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point.
Then we disagree on this, as I regard medication to be a private interest for the individual (barring general outbreaks and pandemics, but here the generalized medication exceptions on patent law kicks in, see Thailand and South Africa for example and the Doa Convention on it.). General healthcare is in the public interest and that it is implemented to a certain degree of general satisfaction. The way of implementation, aka private business automatically removes it from having the public interest at heart and results in the situation where they aren't tied in any meaningful relation from my perspective.
I was answering this with the assumption that under the current situation, pharmaceutical companies are private, where as infrastructure services are public.
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote: I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
You are about right. No wonder the drugs are expensive when they only have 25 years to make up that cost before generics can copy their drug.
Haha yeah I know. The ones that do make it through the proces and end up being profitable are worth more then proverbial gold. For profit business, can't blamen in my opinion. Blame the system . Again, just my very biased personal opinion after years of brainwashing at university haha.
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote: I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
Alot of drugs actually take longer development cycles than that due to the testing / marketing phase taking upwards of 5 years. What people are objecting to is not the original cost of the pharmaceutical, but the fact that a vital usage of it has been found then the company is potentially eliminating the possibility for individuals to access them with out alternative to live.
This does not make sense, as it would be destroying their own market. I'd be amazed if there hasn't gone extensive research in what the existing healthcare systems and general income can support with regard to potential drug costs. The price is undoubtedly based on the results of that.
It's about the net profit made, companies and organizations are more than willing to destroy their own market quite literally (destruction of agricultural goods and waste to drive up profit margins in latin america etc) to achieve a higher overall profit. Except in this case those who can not afford the service will likely suffer.
On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote: [quote] And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
I fail to see the relation between competence and having public interest at heart. Apart from that, the link between malice and the public interest is a very interesting one and straight to the point.
Competence at providing non private services is directly tied to the public interest due to the scope of the services they provide, so it's very straight to the point.
Then we disagree on this, as I regard medication to be a private interest for the individual (barring general outbreaks and pandemics, but here the generalized medication exceptions on patent law kicks in, see Thailand and South Africa for example and the Doa Convention on it.). General healthcare is in the public interest and that it is implemented to a certain degree of general satisfaction. The way of implementation, aka private business automatically removes it from having the public interest at heart and results in the situation where they aren't tied in any meaningful relation from my perspective.
I was answering this with the assumption that under the current situation, pharmaceutical companies are private, where as infrastructure services are public.
Aahhh I misunderstood the premesis on which you were argueing/making your statement then. My bad good sir. With that clarification I understand and argueing from that assumption I fullheartedly agree.
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote: 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.
Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
As has been stated over and over again in this thread, it feels like you are leaving out where these medicines are coming from. Companies pour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in research to make safe and effective drugs. If a company doesn't expect to get money back why would they invest?
I'm not asking them to lose money over it, just asking them to profit less. These companies maximize profits to the point at which they'd let many go without treatment. Which sucks.
Go find any big pharma company and find out how much they spend on research vs how much revenue their drugs generate. The money is definitely not being put into more research. Instead it goes towards buying out other companies, advertising, etc etc.
On October 14 2012 06:57 Nyovne wrote: I picked up somewhere at university a few years back (I actually studied Pharmacy in addition to Law but didn't finish it past my bachelors aka no masters degree.) that a regular piece of medication takes 10 years to devellop and test in addition to about a billion on R&D costs. Add to this that alot, estimated at over 80% (can't source this sadly just from memory sorry!) of the R&D projects never become profitable it more then explains high costs for individual medical product lines.
You are about right. No wonder the drugs are expensive when they only have 25 years to make up that cost before generics can copy their drug.
Haha yeah I know. The ones that do make it through the proces and end up being profitable are worth more then proverbial gold. For profit business, can't blamen in my opinion. Blame the system . Again, just my very biased personal opinion after years of brainwashing at university haha.
Repatenting and ways to extend them are absolutely disgusting from a moral point of view. Well, at least from mine I guess. Such a break in the system and totally not in line with aiding in reaching the system's intended goals.
On October 14 2012 07:08 Nyovne wrote: Repatenting and ways to extend them are absolutely disgusting from a moral point of view. Well, at least from mine I guess. Such a break in the system and totally not in line with aiding in reaching the system's intended goals.
I'm still not entirely convinced that that is what is happening. Or by what means they could if they wanted to, but I'm still not particularly experienced in the field yet.
For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently.
On October 14 2012 07:12 Caihead wrote: For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently.
These numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else.
I'm prefacing this statement with the acknowledgement this is nothing more than mere postulating. I have nothing to back it up and it's even partially devil's advocate, partially belief that it may play a role.
I would assume that the reason the prices are such in Canada and they still enter the Canadian market is because a net profit is to be made, indeed. But that's because the medicine is developed. The incentive is to sell the product in the markets where they can gouge the prices, indeed. But say we remove that incentive. Then the companies in the first place will have significantly less incentive to invest in developing a new product. Canada thus indirectly benefits from the fact prices can be sold for such a price in the United States. If the United States and all other markets regulated this things to similar degrees, then pharma companies would be much less likely to pioneer new development.
In short, they develop the medicines because of hte profit to be made in the U.S., not Canada. But since they can make a profit anyways in Canada, why not, since the research is already completed. However, the incentive from the profit in the Canadian market isn't enough in itself to warrant the huge risk of developing the medicines.
On October 14 2012 07:12 Caihead wrote: For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently.
These numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else.
I'm prefacing this statement with the acknowledgement this is nothing more than mere postulating. I have nothing to back it up and it's even partially devil's advocate, partially belief that it may play a role.
I would assume that the reason the prices are such in Canada and they still enter the Canadian market is because a net profit is to be made, indeed. But that's because the medicine is developed. The incentive is to sell the product in the markets where they can gouge the prices, indeed. But say we remove that incentive. Then the companies in the first place will have significantly less incentive to invest in developing a new product. Canada thus indirectly benefits from the fact prices can be sold for such a price in the United States. If the United States and all other markets regulated this things to similar degrees, then pharma companies would be much less likely to pioneer new development.
In short, they develop the medicines because of hte profit to be made in the U.S., not Canada. But since they can make a profit anyways in Canada, why not, since the research is already completed. However, the incentive from the profit in the Canadian market isn't enough in itself to warrant the huge risk of developing the medicines.
All of which would be true...Except Canada is also a leading nation when it comes to medical research.
On October 14 2012 07:12 Caihead wrote: For reference, this drug currently costs 25000 CAD for a full treatment course in Canada, the next most expensive (fludarabine) costs around 7200 CAD), so after this price adjustment the full treatment cost would be ludicrous. There are also numbers that it costs up to 60000 USD per annum in the US currently.
These numbers may be out of date but I can't find anything else.
I'm prefacing this statement with the acknowledgement this is nothing more than mere postulating. I have nothing to back it up and it's even partially devil's advocate, partially belief that it may play a role.
I would assume that the reason the prices are such in Canada and they still enter the Canadian market is because a net profit is to be made, indeed. But that's because the medicine is developed. The incentive is to sell the product in the markets where they can gouge the prices, indeed. But say we remove that incentive. Then the companies in the first place will have significantly less incentive to invest in developing a new product. Canada thus indirectly benefits from the fact prices can be sold for such a price in the United States. If the United States and all other markets regulated this things to similar degrees, then pharma companies would be much less likely to pioneer new development.
In short, they develop the medicines because of hte profit to be made in the U.S., not Canada. But since they can make a profit anyways in Canada, why not, since the research is already completed. However, the incentive from the profit in the Canadian market isn't enough in itself to warrant the huge risk of developing the medicines.
All of which would be true...Except Canada is also a leading nation when it comes to medical research.
woooo I'm glad I made it clear that was all just theory. haha I'm not really involved with knowing the intricacies . I was trying to think as an Econ major.
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?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
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?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine).
Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
I give like 30 ventolin inhalers away for free in the ER everyday lol
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?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine).
Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. They are operating at a level that keeps everyone handsomely paid and business machinery secure for any future/unforseen drawbacks. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives.
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?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine).
Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives.
Oh, I agree, I don't think that they are losing money or even just breaking even. I'm just saying that when you're dealing with uncertainty, especially at this scale (and with all the potential for liability), that extreme profits are significantly more justifiable than in other areas of business.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$.
Well, I'm not sure if there's sarcasm in your post, but CFCs are fucking awful for the environment.
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?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine).
Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives.
Oh, I agree, I don't think that they are losing money or even just breaking even. I'm just saying that when you're dealing with uncertainty, especially at this scale (and with all the potential for liability), that extreme profits are significantly more justifiable than in other areas of business.
There has to be a more thorough accounting of pharmaceutical records to have a definite numbers on the cost of operation in order to determine reasonable pricing. We can discuss endlessly what margin is acceptable considering incentive and risks, but truth be told, we would merely be speculating. The state has to do this, if only it were not so tied up economically to these multinational organizations.
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote: 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.
Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
As has been stated over and over again in this thread, it feels like you are leaving out where these medicines are coming from. Companies pour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in research to make safe and effective drugs. If a company doesn't expect to get money back why would they invest?
I'm not asking them to lose money over it, just asking them to profit less. These companies maximize profits to the point at which they'd let many go without treatment. Which sucks.
Go find any big pharma company and find out how much they spend on research vs how much revenue their drugs generate. The money is definitely not being put into more research. Instead it goes towards buying out other companies, advertising, etc etc.
Profiting less in comparison to their competitors generally means the death of management in terms of takeover by competitors or a private equity group that is willing to steer the company back on track to higher profit margins.
The problem atleast in the United States with inflation of pharmaceuticals is insurances. I work at a small family pharmacy where my boss has been a pharmacist for over 30 years, and owned the store for 25 years. There was a time when insurance was a rarity, back then you came into a pharmacy put a bottle on the counter, tablets were counted up and put into said bottle and then you charged them a low cash price because the price of medicine was reasonable. Now with insurances, everything is practically covered, so insurances and pharmaceutical companies can work hand in hand and create prices with agreements from each other in terms of rebates and coverage.
It went from a Pharmacist dispensing medicine and consulting the patient to a Pharmacist having to call processor of insurances because there's a change in a bin number, or group number of the patients insurance; or a Pharmacist is calling a doctor to get a prescription adjusted because the original item wasn't covered by the insurance... or better yet sometimes having to give a medicine away being reimbursed less money than the medicine was worth, aka a downright loss.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$.
Well, I'm not sure if there's sarcasm in your post, but CFCs are fucking awful for the environment.
No sarcasm... but there's more CFC in a bottle of hairspray than there was in a pump of albuterol. Believe me the CFC in albuterol was very insignificant, it wasn't doing any harm to the environment.
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?
The government has a regulatory mandate on basic commodities and drugs. I don't know about Nederlands, but in Germany, US, most of Europe and Asia, that is the case. The government sets a reasonable ceiling price to these commodities.
Moreover, I think you hold that view because you view this from a plainly legal and operational perspective. This is not. This is an ethical and social problem. The issue never was that the pharmaceutical are prohibited to make profit out of their drugs. They are already making huge profits out of it, which is why they are in operation. The problem is when they opportunistically exploit this need in order to raise their margins at the cost of people's lives.
It's simply that we need to keep the incentive to invest. Investing in a pharma company is ridiculously risky. There's no guarantee any profit will amount out of the research, etc. Before any profit is made, the profit has to cover previous years investments as well as other failed investments. And I do acknowledge that you already acknowledge this, I just think it needs to be reiterated that's the focus of the opposing argument. The profits *need* to be a little on the extreme side to justify the insane risk. Moderate profits aren't good enough (I imagine).
Insurance strikes a similar node with me with all the people that complain. Insurance companies need to generate extreme profits in some years to cushion for catastrophic losses in other years. 9/11 was a huge catastrophe for insurance companies in terms of financials. Hurricane Katrina resulted in billions of dollars of losses that instantly can wipe out $300 million in profit for 3 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, they make really good profits regardless (with the exception of workers comp which most insurance companies lose money on), it's just you have to keep it in perspective. They're insane wtf profits are toned down by other factors that just make the profits still really extreme (and possibly regulatory inducing), but it's still diff than what you might expect. That and the media hates them.
While the ROI and incentive part is true, I doubt that any pharmaceutical, multinationals at that, operating at this scale is losing anything or are getting anything less than even. The problem is that they want to go extend profit margins to inhuman levels, at the risk of people's lives.
Oh, I agree, I don't think that they are losing money or even just breaking even. I'm just saying that when you're dealing with uncertainty, especially at this scale (and with all the potential for liability), that extreme profits are significantly more justifiable than in other areas of business.
There has to be a more thorough accounting of pharmaceutical records to have a definite numbers on the cost of operation in order to determine reasonable pricing. We can discuss endlessly what margin is acceptable considering incentive and risks, but truth be told, we would merely be speculating. The state has to do this, if only it were not so tied up economically to these multinational organizations.
In New York, Medicaid requires this type of program. It's basically a survey, you as an owner of a Pharmacy have to answer questions, give figures of operational costs, as far as utilities, employee wages and basically anything a Pharmacy needs to spend on to stay afloat, and based on that Medicaid determines what they reimburse. Honestly I think it's a terrible idea, there's a national AWP price that is normally set for all medicines, and it should be strictly based on that. AWP should be regulated more, so Pharmacies can get reimbursed downright. We can talk ethics all we want, but a Pharmacy is a business just like anything else, they shouldn't be breaking even on whatever they give, or straight up losing money, which is a huge problem in todays market.
On October 14 2012 11:07 NuKE[vZ] wrote: The problem atleast in the United States with inflation of pharmaceuticals is insurances. I work at a small family pharmacy where my boss has been a pharmacist for over 30 years, and owned the store for 25 years. There was a time when insurance was a rarity, back then you came into a pharmacy put a bottle on the counter, tablets were counted up and put into said bottle and then you charged them a low cash price because the price of medicine was reasonable. Now with insurances, everything is practically covered, so insurances and pharmaceutical companies can work hand in hand and create prices with agreements from each other in terms of rebates and coverage.
It went from a Pharmacist dispensing medicine and consulting the patient to a Pharmacist having to call processor of insurances because there's a change in a bin number, or group number of the patients insurance; or a Pharmacist is calling a doctor to get a prescription adjusted because the original item wasn't covered by the insurance... or better yet sometimes having to give a medicine away being reimbursed less money than the medicine was worth, aka a downright loss.
Insurances suck, pharmaceutical companies suck.
lol. How is that in the insurance companies fault? Why the hell doesn't the pharmacy have someone in admin that's paid 1/10 of the amount do that anyways?
Note: I'm biased, I work for a major insurance company.
On October 14 2012 11:07 NuKE[vZ] wrote: The problem atleast in the United States with inflation of pharmaceuticals is insurances. I work at a small family pharmacy where my boss has been a pharmacist for over 30 years, and owned the store for 25 years. There was a time when insurance was a rarity, back then you came into a pharmacy put a bottle on the counter, tablets were counted up and put into said bottle and then you charged them a low cash price because the price of medicine was reasonable. Now with insurances, everything is practically covered, so insurances and pharmaceutical companies can work hand in hand and create prices with agreements from each other in terms of rebates and coverage.
It went from a Pharmacist dispensing medicine and consulting the patient to a Pharmacist having to call processor of insurances because there's a change in a bin number, or group number of the patients insurance; or a Pharmacist is calling a doctor to get a prescription adjusted because the original item wasn't covered by the insurance... or better yet sometimes having to give a medicine away being reimbursed less money than the medicine was worth, aka a downright loss.
Insurances suck, pharmaceutical companies suck.
lol. How is that in the insurance companies fault? Why the hell doesn't the pharmacy have someone in admin that's paid 1/10 of the amount do that anyways?
Note: I'm biased, I work for a major insurance company.
I blame the insurances indirectly lol... what I meant was the old days when there weren't many insurances, everything was just fine. Once insurances came about and then started teaming up with pharmaceutical companies in terms of rebates and such, that's where prices increased and inflation set in. As far as your second question, I don't understand what you are asking, could you please explain the question to me? thanks
In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
Same crap. Different drug (for treating macular degeneration). My mom has to administer tens of thousand dollars worth of the expensive kind every friday.
"In 2008, bevacizumab cost Medicare only $20 million for about 480,000 injections, while ranibizumab cost Medicare $537 million for only 337,000 injections.[6] A small study showed no superior effect of ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in direct comparison.[7] The CATT trial data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2011. The trial showed that the two drugs "had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule". The authors also concluded that differences in the rates of side effects required further study.[8]"
The company didn't want to run the expensive and extensive trials necessary to have the cheaper drug (used for cancer treatment) approved for treatment of macular degeneration. Instead, they slightly modified the cancer drug, ran the trials to have it officially approved for AMD, while raising its price by a factor of 30.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
At the end of the day, most top of the line brand name drugs like the ones you mentioned have discount card.. IE: Lipitor for 4$, etc..
and they end up getting generic after their patent expires... IE: Lipitor.
There are plenty of alternatives to high priced brand name drugs, unless of course you start going into that upper echelon of medicine, for the rare diseases and conditions. That's where like you said the government should step in and help out, no reason why patients with cancer can't be given a medicine, or anything else really.
This is nothing new... if they can get away with it, they'll charge whatever price they want. if you need it, you have to buy it. It's the same with gas. Now the drug part is a little more interesting because if you live in the US, you get raped by the prices. In Canada, the drugs are soooooooo much cheaper but there are laws against buying drugs from Canada, so the companies can make more money. the US government is corrupt. that's all i gotta say. they're all bought out by the big companies.
Same crap. Different drug (for treating macular degeneration). My mom has to administer tens of thousand dollars worth of the expensive kind every friday.
"In 2008, bevacizumab cost Medicare only $20 million for about 480,000 injections, while ranibizumab cost Medicare $537 million for only 337,000 injections.[6] A small study showed no superior effect of ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in direct comparison.[7] The CATT trial data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2011. The trial showed that the two drugs "had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule". The authors also concluded that differences in the rates of side effects required further study.[8]"
It's sad, there's so many medicines like that. They formulate them different, add a letter or two onto the drug name and market it as a high priced brand name. Look at the entire line of proton pump inhibitors, omeprazole(Prilosec), lansoprazole(Prevacid), esomeprazole(Nexium), pantoprazole(Protonix), rabeprazole(Aciphex), dexlansoprazole(Dexilant)...
It's all the same stuff, one little thing that could be different is allowed to be patented and made into a billionaire making machine. So sad.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
No, we don't all support it, when it comes to people staying alive or being dead, or just maintaining a decent quality of living. That is the whole problem.
India seems to have gotten it right:
Novartis’ first attempts at patenting Glivec were rejected in India because it was considered to be an updated version of an existing Novartis drug, and therefore not eligible for patent protection. To protect consumers of low-cost medicines — and its pharmaceutical industry — Indian patent law aims to curtail a process known as ‘evergreening,’ in which pharmaceutical companies make sometimes minor improvements to an old medicine, allowing them to renew their patent. Under India’s tough standards, modifications that do not improve the efficacy of the drug are not eligible for extended patents.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
No, we don't all support it, when it comes to people staying alive or being dead, or just maintaining a decent quality of living. That is the whole problem.
You're talking about fundamental problems with societal inequality now - this extends much farther and deeper than just a single hypothetical situation with a single drug. Of course people deserve a good quality life - it's just not that simple in reality.
Novartis’ first attempts at patenting Glivec were rejected in India because it was considered to be an updated version of an existing Novartis drug, and therefore not eligible for patent protection. To protect consumers of low-cost medicines — and its pharmaceutical industry — Indian patent law aims to curtail a process known as ‘evergreening,’ in which pharmaceutical companies make sometimes minor improvements to an old medicine, allowing them to renew their patent. Under India’s tough standards, modifications that do not improve the efficacy of the drug are not eligible for extended patents.
Here's an interesting blog about recent legal events in India and their implications.
Funny that you bring up india as an example when they do just about everything wrong. Poor safety protocol and they don't respect patents... companies don't even bother filing in India. I can't speak for other countries, but this is how the US has been for a long time. Sometimes it's splitting hairs when you have something like nexium which is just the more active enantiomer of prilosec but you always have to prove efficacy. I imagine it's the same in Europe and Japan which are the other major markets.
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.
Your view of the world doesn't work in practice. If we thought like this, then all those monopoly laws should be abolished, all of the regulations on price control for inner city living costs would be abolished. These kinds of laws and regulations are necessary since those that weren't born privileged (which I assume you were, or at least you desire servitude to those that are privileged) shouldn't be allowed to be thrown to the streets by those that were. How would it be any different than an old society with nobility in place if we are allowed to just fuck everyone up less fortunate than us?
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
So, has anyone in this thread yet bothered to explain with evidence and not conjecture why this drug can't simply be sold generic since it's off patent? I've been off a while.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
On October 15 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: So, has anyone in this thread yet bothered to explain with evidence and not conjecture why this drug can't simply be sold generic since it's off patent? I've been off a while.
It could be sold as a generic, but it's still not that simple. Someone has to make it as a generic and this requires filling a abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA. There's a little bit of info on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviated_New_Drug_Application.
But basically, you have to prove that your formulation is equivalent in efficacy and bioavailability, which is overall concentrations in the body. This is notoriously difficult with monoclonal antibodies, which is what kind of drug we were talking about in the OP. It's not just a 30 or 40 atom molecule, its a huge protein however many thousand amino-acids long. This means exponentially more things can go wrong with proving it to be equivalent. So yes possible, but very difficult to do in reality. Companies really like these biologics because they are difficult to make generics for.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
I remembered when i went to buy prednisolon in sweden. It was like 800 sek for 200 pills. Then i went on a vacation to thailand and got 120 pills for like 30 sek. It's really fucked up. But then it's a limit on how much on can spend on medication and after that it becomes free. Must be a hell where you dont have those privileges.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
The point was that competition could hurt more than it could help.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
The point was that competition could hurt more than it could help.
In a way. It could be argued that innovation would be hindered if the company couldn't benefit from its own discoveries. It just adds to the pile of things that suggest that we can't leave it 100% up to the private companies to do stuff in relation to medicine. There's something fundamentally wrong in the idea of profiting off of people's illnesses. I don't think it's too much to ask to involve the public.
Putting an arbitrary price on a person's life is just not the way to go.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
I don't think it's about "taking away" private initiative. It's more about controlling their ambitions. Of course pharmaceutic companies are necessary, and furthermore they need to turn a profit - but currently they're allowed to gouge pretty hardcore. While I'm fine with CEOs of tech companies getting absurdly rich, pharmaceutic companies should be held to a standard of morality. When someone gets rich by selling medicine at an artificially inflated price, he's letting people die. That's just how it is.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
Or you subsidize the entire drug market and ensure that everyone with a regular, honest job can afford food, rent and necessary medicine. Like, you know, a civilized species.
Things like schools and hospitals(including medicine) should be about their primary function first, profit second, they are instrumental to the basic functionality of society, and as such should never be jeopardized by handing them over to private companies whos only objective is to make more money, even to the detriment of society as a whole. Humans are irretrievably greedy and selfish by nature, a society that wishes to survive has to take steps to protect itself from many of humanity's baser instincts.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
Or you subsidize the entire drug market and ensure that everyone with a regular, honest job can afford food, rent and necessary medicine. Like, you know, a civilized species.
Things like schools and hospitals(including medicine) should be about their primary function first, profit second, they are instrumental to the basic functionality of society, and as such should never be jeopardized by handing them over to private companies whos only objective is to make more money, even to the detriment of society as a whole. Humans are irretrievably greedy and selfish by nature, a society that wishes to survive has to take steps to protect itself from many of humanity's baser instincts.
Subsidizing drugs wouldn't change a thing as far as profits go. It would just mean that profits come from government spending more than from insurance and individuals.
Generally the point of a for-profit system is that by making more profit you better society. If that is not the case (and it generally IS the case with drugs) then you have a problem with the market, not profits.
On October 15 2012 04:57 Equity213 wrote: Well wheres the competition to bring down the price of this drug? There is none because of the FDA and the patent system.
In a market with competition gouging customers would be a stupid business plan.
Hard to make competition in this industry, that's the major issue when it comes to capitalism in pharma and that's why it's a monopolistic system and why they can charge such outrageous prices.
It's ok my friend, we live in regulation socialist Neo-communist Russia Canada which lacks the liberties and freedoms , we have to suffer Universal healthcare... and cheap medical drugs.
On October 15 2012 04:57 Equity213 wrote: Well wheres the competition to bring down the price of this drug? There is none because of the FDA and the patent system.
In a market with competition gouging customers would be a stupid business plan.
Without patents there would be zero for-profit drug research.
With patents there is still competition from different drugs that treat the same illness. If you don't think that the competition is not fierce enough then advocate for things that will increase competition such as better and more transparent information about drug efficacy and cost.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
Or you subsidize the entire drug market and ensure that everyone with a regular, honest job can afford food, rent and necessary medicine. Like, you know, a civilized species.
Things like schools and hospitals(including medicine) should be about their primary function first, profit second, they are instrumental to the basic functionality of society, and as such should never be jeopardized by handing them over to private companies whos only objective is to make more money, even to the detriment of society as a whole. Humans are irretrievably greedy and selfish by nature, a society that wishes to survive has to take steps to protect itself from many of humanity's baser instincts.
Subsidizing drugs wouldn't change a thing as far as profits go. It would just mean that profits come from government spending more than from insurance and individuals.
Generally the point of a for-profit system is that by making more profit you better society. If that is not the case (and it generally IS the case with drugs) then you have a problem with the market, not profits.
Of course you need rather strict regulations limiting the what the drug companies can charge for an essential drug. Or have a cap system where after you spend a certain amount of money on medicine the government steps in and cover the rest of the cost.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
The point was that competition could hurt more than it could help.
In a way. It could be argued that innovation would be hindered if the company couldn't benefit from its own discoveries. It just adds to the pile of things that suggest that we can't leave it 100% up to the private companies to do stuff in relation to medicine. There's something fundamentally wrong in the idea of profiting off of people's illnesses. I don't think it's too much to ask to involve the public.
Putting an arbitrary price on a person's life is just not the way to go.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
I don't think it's about "taking away" private initiative. It's more about controlling their ambitions. Of course pharmaceutic companies are necessary, and furthermore they need to turn a profit - but currently they're allowed to gouge pretty hardcore. While I'm fine with CEOs of tech companies getting absurdly rich, pharmaceutic companies should be held to a standard of morality. When someone gets rich by selling medicine at an artificially inflated price, he's letting people die. That's just how it is.
At least in the UK, drugs that are bought from these companies and used in our National Health Service have to go through a screening process performed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), in England and Wales anyway, and then are subject to a cost/benefit analysis. It's not a simple case of the free market, given that the companies primary customers for drugs for the big hitters like cancer is the state-run health service and is subject to case-by-case regulation of drugs. It's only after this litmus test that drugs get the green light to go on our health service.
These companies do not exist in some kind of vacuum, they are able to operate as they do because of the intervention of states. If it wasn't for the state subsidies or private insurance policies that paid for such drugs, the market wouldn't exist. If these drugs were sold over the counter straight to the consumer they would simply be unaffordable to the vast majority of people.
Not to mention that some of the potentially brilliant minds that countries such as the UK provide with a state-subsidised tertiary education sector.
But yeah, free markets! Companies can charge what they want because they, and they alone did everything themselves.
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
I'd like to add that even free market proponents should realize the danger of monopolies. And I don't care if other pharmaceutic companies are selling this drug or intend to or whatever the situation is, but when you can hike your prices to 20x what they used to be, you know something bad is happening - the healthy competition isn't there.
Even in cruel ole' capitalism, this is not acceptable. Especially since you know this decision had to be made by some suits who absolutely know that the only thing that allows them to hike their prices that high is the fact that their "customers" don't have a choice because they need to huh... not die... Get people addicted, then hike the price dramatically - it's dirty. But I bet even the crummiest street corner dealers don't get away with such dramatic price increases.
On top of that, it doesn't matter that drugs cost a lot to produce. Not in this particular case. It doesn't cost the company extra to have their medicine happen to have unexpected effects. The R&D costs and the production costs were presumably good when they sold it for its intended purpose. It didn't suddenly start costing them 20x more. In fact, they were making extra profits since they sold a higher volume.
So indeed, this stuff shouldn't be left in the hands of greedy men. At least not without a healthy dose of competition instead of that legal monopoly BS and perhaps cartels.
The point is that there shouldn't be competition during a patent. You're supposed to have a monopoly. They can price as they choose. Patent law might be broken, but it doesn't detract from the fact monopolies are not the issue. It's duration and ease of acquiring/renewing patents that are an issue.
I did mention this as "legal monopoly". It is an issue. If you want to blame the patent system that creates a monopoly, we can have that boring semantics argument. But I suggest that you just allow me to use words =_=
The point was that competition could hurt more than it could help.
In a way. It could be argued that innovation would be hindered if the company couldn't benefit from its own discoveries. It just adds to the pile of things that suggest that we can't leave it 100% up to the private companies to do stuff in relation to medicine. There's something fundamentally wrong in the idea of profiting off of people's illnesses. I don't think it's too much to ask to involve the public.
Putting an arbitrary price on a person's life is just not the way to go.
On October 15 2012 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 15 2012 02:01 McBengt wrote:
On October 14 2012 11:16 calgar wrote: In defense of the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think people really appreciate how difficult it is to develop a drug. From initial discovery to marketplace delivery generally takes 13-15 years. No other product or industry has such a long inception to market time. The costs for developing a drug are estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars these days. You have teams of lab researchers analyzing data from high throughput scans to find thousands of compounds that show affinity to a certain receptor. Then you have to weed out candidates and optimize them based on structure-activity relationships which takes a few years. This is expensive. You have to do tox studies (phase I), followed by more expensive phase II studies that look at basic efficacy in 100 or so patients. Then you have several more years of testing for phase III studies in a larger population. At any point in this timeline if a drug shows toxicity, bad adverse reactions, or lack of efficacy, it is canned. A drug continues to be analyzed after release in phase IV studies and can still get pulled. If you have to withdraw it then that's a huge monetary loss. This difficulty means a very low success rate for initial compounds; we're talking less than 1 in 10,000 that will actually make it through.
So yeah, it's easy to paint them as the bad guys because your Lipitor costs a shitload, but it costs a lot for a reason. The costs for development have skyrocketed in the last 15-20 years. It's an unsustainable model right now... Developing drugs is such an expensive process that 'orphan' diseases that don't have a large sales market are a losing investment to develop a treatment. The government has to subsidize research into these conditions.
So yes, a new patent for a different indication can be misconstrued as evil and immoral. But it's really just about capitalism and making money, which we all support right? The article is poorly written and shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the process. "is expected to relaunch it under the trade name, Lemtrada, at what could be many times its current price". The entire thing is just speculation right now.
This is probably the best argument for universal, non-profit healthcare I have ever read.
Tip: Some things really should not be made for profit, or left to the mercy of the free market at all. People's lives come to mind.
If you take away for-profit drug companies then fewer drugs will be created and more lives will be lost.
I don't think it's about "taking away" private initiative. It's more about controlling their ambitions. Of course pharmaceutic companies are necessary, and furthermore they need to turn a profit - but currently they're allowed to gouge pretty hardcore. While I'm fine with CEOs of tech companies getting absurdly rich, pharmaceutic companies should be held to a standard of morality. When someone gets rich by selling medicine at an artificially inflated price, he's letting people die. That's just how it is.
At least in the UK, drugs that are bought from these companies and used in our National Health Service have to go through a screening process performed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), in England and Wales anyway, and then are subject to a cost/benefit analysis. It's not a simple case of the free market, given that the companies primary customers for drugs for the big hitters like cancer is the state-run health service and is subject to case-by-case regulation of drugs. It's only after this litmus test that drugs get the green light to go on our health service.
These companies do not exist in some kind of vacuum, they are able to operate as they do because of the intervention of states. If it wasn't for the state subsidies or private insurance policies that paid for such drugs, the market wouldn't exist. If these drugs were sold over the counter straight to the consumer they would simply be unaffordable to the vast majority of people.
Not to mention that some of the potentially brilliant minds that countries such as the UK provide with a state-subsidised tertiary education sector.
But yeah, free markets! Companies can charge what they want because they, and they alone did everything themselves.
Nobody said the companies existed in a vacuum, I'm well aware that there are existing restrictions and whatnot, and in many cases the customers of the pharmaceutic companies are countries. That doesn't change that I feel like the regulations are insufficient and too loose in some ways.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
You can thank the no good tree huggers for that... apparently there were two much CFC's(chlorofluorocarbons) packaged in the old albuterol pumps... what a disaster that was. I remember the old albuterols, they were cheap and we gave them out by the dozens, now Ventolin which is really a brand name is the cheapest at like 45$.
I just don't think they should be able to block generics in that fashion. Just because they change propellants shouldn't mean they can change the price so drastically via blocking generics. Although walmart offers ventolin for $10 it seems to run out quick.
On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote: Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa.
New?
Multiple Sclerosis.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. They did the exact same thing almost with my albuteral inhalers. FDA made them change something on the dispenser therefore giving them a reset on the generic laws. Sending the prices skyrocketing from $5 to almost $100.
I give like 30 ventolin inhalers away for free in the ER everyday lol
Well I live in the US, I'm gonna change my country to US because it confuses everyone Im just proud of being a french canadian by birth.
EPT
. I was trying to think as an Econ major.
, we have to suffer Universal healthcare... and cheap medical drugs.
