|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us.
|
On March 28 2015 06:24 Simberto wrote:
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us.
How is TTIP going to make your healthcare more expensive? Facts please.
|
On March 28 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:We couldn't, because that would just be another market distortion, one that probably hinders the future development of drugs. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2009/RAND_RP1380.pdfShow nested quote +Implementing price controls in the United States would have adverse effects on European consumers, by depressing rates of innovation. These global linkages create major policy problems in an international marketplace, because a given country does not fully realize the benefits (or costs) of its own policies. European price controls, for example, have smaller effects on innovation, because of the presence of a large U.S. market, which acts as a counterweight to policies that reduce European revenues. Moreover, some of the costs that do accrue end up being borne by U.S. consumers, further dampening Europe’s incentives for higher prices. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19834en/s19834en.pdfShow nested quote + The United States accounts for more than 40% of OECD expenditure on pharmaceuticals The evidence is that the United States market is the primary driver of pharmaceutical development. Now, they can still make money in Europe, because the marginal cost of a dose once a drug has been developed is minuscule. You might propose a new system that is different than the current Research>Patent>Regulatory Approval>Profit lifecycle for drugs in the modern economy, but because that is the model we use the US market (and US consumers) subsidizes the European market (by providing them with drugs that never would have been developed).
Then the pharma CEOs will just take a pay cut and own five cars instead of twenty-five, what a horror. Where is the evidence that reasonable price regulation hampers innovation, which is what this whole "study" is based on? It's like saying the American college system will collapse if the administrators and shareholders will stop raking in absurd amounts of money. You're simply being scammed here.
|
On March 28 2015 06:24 Simberto wrote:
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us.
So, you are now proud that America is shouldering a substantival portion of your healthcare costs? But also acting outraged when during treaty negotiations Americans insist on (or even just ask for) a more equitable split?
TPP, in this context, is just an external enforcer in what boils down to a classic Prisoner's Dilemma.
|
On March 28 2015 07:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:We couldn't, because that would just be another market distortion, one that probably hinders the future development of drugs. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2009/RAND_RP1380.pdfImplementing price controls in the United States would have adverse effects on European consumers, by depressing rates of innovation. These global linkages create major policy problems in an international marketplace, because a given country does not fully realize the benefits (or costs) of its own policies. European price controls, for example, have smaller effects on innovation, because of the presence of a large U.S. market, which acts as a counterweight to policies that reduce European revenues. Moreover, some of the costs that do accrue end up being borne by U.S. consumers, further dampening Europe’s incentives for higher prices. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19834en/s19834en.pdf The United States accounts for more than 40% of OECD expenditure on pharmaceuticals The evidence is that the United States market is the primary driver of pharmaceutical development. Now, they can still make money in Europe, because the marginal cost of a dose once a drug has been developed is minuscule. You might propose a new system that is different than the current Research>Patent>Regulatory Approval>Profit lifecycle for drugs in the modern economy, but because that is the model we use the US market (and US consumers) subsidizes the European market (by providing them with drugs that never would have been developed). Then the pharma CEOs will just take a pay cut and own five cars instead of twenty-five, what a horror. Where is the evidence that reasonable price regulation hampers innovation, which is what this whole "study" is based on?
So long as countries are using fair negotiation practices there shouldn't be a problem. If they're doing things like 'lower the price of X drug or we'll ban you from the country and legalize violating your IP' than imo you'd have an unfair trade practice.
It's like saying the American college system will collapse if the administrators and shareholders will stop raking in absurd amounts of money. You're simply being scammed here. You shouldn't assume that higher prices mean either super-profits or higher executive pay.
|
|
|
On March 28 2015 07:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You shouldn't assume that higher prices mean either super-profits or higher executive pay.
Who's assuming? 30% doesn't sound too shabby.
|
I don't think anyone argued that they are 'poor'. As for net profit margin, that doesn't tell the whole story. For one thing, successful drug development typically consists of decades of losses followed by decades of profits. So if you are looking at just the profitable period, you'll see numbers that are biased to the high side. Margin on sales can also fluctuate between industries because of differences in asset turnover.
The sustainability if margins is also a concern because drugs run off of patent over time, or are displaced by competing drugs. If you are unable to come up with something new, than your business will dry up in a few years time. I'm not sure what the industry's current pipeline looks like, but I've heard that the easy development of the 90's is over. I'm not sure if that changed with Biotech's growth or not.
On March 28 2015 08:00 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 07:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You shouldn't assume that higher prices mean either super-profits or higher executive pay. Who's assuming? 30% doesn't sound too shabby.
Yeah some make a lot and others are money losers.
|
economic wahhabism, great prophit foretold:
exploitation of the worker and land, insh'allah!
free market akbar!
User was banned for this post.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
europe is subsidized by american innovation is indisputable. this can be settled without calling the u.s. model ideal.
|
On March 28 2015 06:12 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 05:52 Simberto wrote:
Ah, so your healthcare system is that horribly bad by design, so you can altruistically support all of us poor european children in our silly socialistic ways which would never work without the glorious american capitalism saving us? Its almost like I provided objective evidence that Europe is being supported by the American system, and you countered with and unsubstantiated catty retort. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm053614.htmShow nested quote +This year, Americans, who account for a fraction of prescription drug use worldwide, will pay for about half of all pharmaceutical spending worldwide. By contrast, citizens in the world’s third largest economy, Germany, paid less than five percent. The same kind of drug payment disparity is true for many other developed nations who have about as much ability to pay as Americans do.
Yet on the whole, people in these other nations are getting most of the same kinds of drugs and the many of the same kinds of health benefits as Americans. And it’s not only Americans that seem to be paying an unfair share. Drug prices on average are significantly higher in countries like Poland than they are in France and Germany – even though people in those countries have significantly less economic wealth than the countries of Western Europe.
This is absurd. You use the fact that US-American consumers are being robbed blind by the pharmaceutical mafia to argue that Europeans should let themselves be exploited too.
|
On March 29 2015 08:21 Hagen0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 06:12 cLutZ wrote:On March 28 2015 05:52 Simberto wrote:
Ah, so your healthcare system is that horribly bad by design, so you can altruistically support all of us poor european children in our silly socialistic ways which would never work without the glorious american capitalism saving us? Its almost like I provided objective evidence that Europe is being supported by the American system, and you countered with and unsubstantiated catty retort. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm053614.htmThis year, Americans, who account for a fraction of prescription drug use worldwide, will pay for about half of all pharmaceutical spending worldwide. By contrast, citizens in the world’s third largest economy, Germany, paid less than five percent. The same kind of drug payment disparity is true for many other developed nations who have about as much ability to pay as Americans do.
Yet on the whole, people in these other nations are getting most of the same kinds of drugs and the many of the same kinds of health benefits as Americans. And it’s not only Americans that seem to be paying an unfair share. Drug prices on average are significantly higher in countries like Poland than they are in France and Germany – even though people in those countries have significantly less economic wealth than the countries of Western Europe. This is absurd. You use the fact that US-American consumers are being robbed blind by the pharmaceutical mafia to argue that Europeans should let themselves be exploited too.
No, its a classic Prisoner's Dilemma problem where the USA keeps picking "cooperate" and European states keep picking "defect" so they keep getting a good share of the pie without paying in, but the pie is shrinking as a result. TPP would serve as an external enforcer (the guy who gives snitches their stitches) so that everyone stays silent, and the overall payout is bigger.
|
The current health care system in the US is utterly dysfunctional and the pharmaceutical industry bears a part of the blame for that. For some time now they have been spending more money for advertising and lobbying than for research (+outsize profits and executive pay). They do have some beneficial drugs in their portfolios but those are increasingly crowded out by lifestyle drugs and drugs curing afflictions invented by their marketing department. The pharmaceutical industry with their lobbying for ever-more ridiculous patent protections, corruption of local health care administrations and general price gouging have always been a menace to the health and well-being of citizens of third-world-countries. But by now it seems pretty clear that people in industrial countries would be better off without them too. It is almost unimaginable that there is no better way to organize medical research than throwing excess amounts of money at these corrupt, inefficient and often immoral bureaucracies.
One idea would be to do away with patent protection entirely and finance research and development publicly. Any firm could then take the fruits of this research and produce these drugs making changes to them if they want too. You'd have a competitive market. Since most drugs are very cheap to produce even people in poor countries could afford AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria medication. This system would hardly be perfect. You'd still have a bias towards developing drugs benefitting the rich over the many, competition for academic funding can be quite dirty and even corrupt. But as I mentioned it is hard to imagine that this system would not be immensely better than what we have now.
|
On March 28 2015 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 06:24 Simberto wrote:
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us. How is TTIP going to make your healthcare more expensive? Facts please.
Someone asked me about the bad impact of the treaty, I gave some exemple. If you think they're wrong, feel free to read french papers on the subject (I don't have any english sources on this).
Here are two small articles (there are TONS just on the monde diplomatique) about some of the discussion going on in regard to the treaty. The first is called "Ten menaces for the american people" and the second "Ten menaces for the european people". In both of those there are hint on how the american and european pharmaceutics are lobbying for the TTIP.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/JACKLEIN/50485
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/WALLACH/50483
|
On March 29 2015 19:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2015 06:24 Simberto wrote:
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us. How is TTIP going to make your healthcare more expensive? Facts please. Someone asked me about the bad impact of the treaty, I gave some exemple. If you think they're wrong, feel free to read french papers on the subject (I don't have any english sources on this). Here are two small articles (there are TONS just on the monde diplomatique) about some of the discussion going on in regard to the treaty. The first is called "Ten menaces for the american people" and the second "Ten menaces for the european people". In both of those there are hint on how the american and european pharmaceutics are lobbying for the TTIP. http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/JACKLEIN/50485http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/WALLACH/50483
I'll ask again for facts. Those articles are making assertions with little to no basis given.
Example: US Side: Loss of jobs by the disappearance of national preference rules for public procurement. Negotiators and large companies of the Old Continent GMT hope the US will abolish policies to prefer national and local actors for public orders ( buy American and buy local policies ). These provisions ensure that taxpayers' money is reinvested in projects that create American jobs.
...
EU Side: Increased unemployment. Within the Union, non-European companies can benefit from public procurement. Much less the United States, where the rules to ensure a minimum of " local content "are widespread. Result: expanding markets accessible to US companies without consideration for their European counterparts, with adverse consequences for employment within the Union.
Yeah, so US will be hurt because TTIP will remove national preferences, and the EU will be hurt because national preferences exist. Telling me that two mutually exclusive things are going to happen? Really?
Less reliable medicines. European pharmaceutical companies want the US Agency for Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) renounces independent evaluations of drugs sold on American soil. They propose that Washington automatically recognize drugs approved by the European authorities.
As for drugs, I'm not sure what they mean by renouncing independent evaluations. Looking at the FDA's process, the world 'independent' doesn't seem to even appear. Greater cooperation between regulatory systems would be good as well, since it's not like European authorities are any less competent than what we have in the US.
NPR had a great story not too long ago on the differences between US and EU regulations on car safety. They mainly amount to finding different ways to do the same thing. I imagine the EU and US drug regulator differences exist in a similar light - different but no one better than the other.
|
On March 30 2015 01:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 19:38 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2015 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2015 06:24 Simberto wrote:
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us. How is TTIP going to make your healthcare more expensive? Facts please. Someone asked me about the bad impact of the treaty, I gave some exemple. If you think they're wrong, feel free to read french papers on the subject (I don't have any english sources on this). Here are two small articles (there are TONS just on the monde diplomatique) about some of the discussion going on in regard to the treaty. The first is called "Ten menaces for the american people" and the second "Ten menaces for the european people". In both of those there are hint on how the american and european pharmaceutics are lobbying for the TTIP. http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/JACKLEIN/50485http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/WALLACH/50483 I'll ask again for facts. Those articles are making assertions with little to no basis given.
How about giving some facts about the benefits of TTIP?
You can't give any. There are also only studies (which also make assumptions as basis) projecting a gain in growth, or promising some benefit. Because the topic is so complex and affects many and large economies in unpredictable manners, no one can say for certain if and what kind of economic benefits will materialize. So please stop trying to discredit any critique of TTIP by asking a 100% proof - which we of course cannot provide given the circumstances - when it in fact should be the other way around, that the side which wants to change the status quo and make giant changes in international trade, which could hamper national ability to regulate and make laws in a big way, should first proof that the changes they lobby for have a benefit for all involved parties.
|
On March 30 2015 02:16 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 01:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2015 19:38 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2015 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2015 06:24 Simberto wrote:
One could also assume that your healthcare system just sucks balls and you overpay by absurd amounts? And now instead of fixing that, you want to push that same bad system onto us so we can also have overpriced healthcare so you don't have to feel so shitty about your own system?
In the hopes that everyone having the same shitty system will in some weird way, instead of having everyone overpay, have the americans pay less. Through the magic of the free market, of course.
You make paying too much sound like some noble act, and not you being exploited by pharma companies that are apparently very good at lobbying your government and convincing people that this weird ass system that you have, that is pretty much singular in the developed world and produces singularly bad results, is actually good and you are subsidizing all of us. How is TTIP going to make your healthcare more expensive? Facts please. Someone asked me about the bad impact of the treaty, I gave some exemple. If you think they're wrong, feel free to read french papers on the subject (I don't have any english sources on this). Here are two small articles (there are TONS just on the monde diplomatique) about some of the discussion going on in regard to the treaty. The first is called "Ten menaces for the american people" and the second "Ten menaces for the european people". In both of those there are hint on how the american and european pharmaceutics are lobbying for the TTIP. http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/JACKLEIN/50485http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/06/WALLACH/50483 I'll ask again for facts. Those articles are making assertions with little to no basis given. How about giving some facts about the benefits of TTIP? You can't give any. There are also only studies (which also make assumptions as basis) projecting a gain in growth, or promising some benefit. Because the topic is so complex and affects many and large economies in unpredictable manners, no one can say for certain if and what kind of economic benefits will materialize. So please stop trying to discredit any critique of TTIP by asking a 100% proof - which we of course cannot provide given the circumstances - when it in fact should be the other way around, that the side which wants to change the status quo and make giant changes in international trade, which could hamper national ability to regulate and make laws in a big way, should first proof that the changes they lobby for have a benefit for all involved parties.
I'm not asking for 100% proof, I'm asking for facts to back up assertions. If I said that TTIP was going to lower drug costs I could point to the EC's stated goals: Medicines regulators already work closely together.
The EU proposes several areas for further joint work, including:
recognising each other's good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections of manufacturing plants, to avoid duplicating work and costs;
allowing the exchange of confidential information to support more joint assessments of new medicines
harmonising our requirements for approving 'biosimilars' - products similar to already-licensed biological medicines. Source
I'll also point out that getting regulatory approval is costly, re-cite my NPR story on overlap and cite a recent NPR story on how biosimilars can save the nation a lot of money.
|
You nitpicked the contradiction because two different people made two different article taking two different point of view (american for the first and european for the second). Good job.
|
so to add to the discussion of the second law system
Source: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html
The Investment Chapter highlights the intent of the TPP negotiating parties, led by the United States, to increase the power of global corporations by creating a supra-national court, or tribunal, where foreign firms can "sue" states and obtain taxpayer compensation for "expected future profits". These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are designed to overrule the national court systems. ISDS tribunals introduce a mechanism by which multinational corporations can force governments to pay compensation if the tribunal states that a country's laws or policies affect the company's claimed future profits. In return, states hope that multinationals will invest more. Similar mechanisms have already been used. For example, US tobacco company Phillip Morris used one such tribunal to sue Australia (June 2011 – ongoing) for mandating plain packaging of tobacco products on public health grounds; and by the oil giant Chevron against Ecuador in an attempt to evade a multi-billion-dollar compensation ruling for polluting the environment. The threat of future lawsuits chilled environmental and other legislation in Canada after it was sued by pesticide companies in 2008/9. ISDS tribunals are often held in secret, have no appeal mechanism, do not subordinate themselves to human rights laws or the public interest, and have few means by which other affected parties can make representations.
So we see Philip Morris sues Australia for changing Laws regarding packaging.
And Chevron cause they fear a fine for polluting the environment.
everything points to the fact that this agreement is only designed to give company's the option to overrule national laws, cause they maybe cut their profits.
the fact that these agreements should stay secret even AFTER the treaty is finished, sadly shows that we cant trust our politicians. there are very few things a state should keep secret from his citizens and the details of a trade treaty are certainly not one of them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why don't you use an actual source instead of wikileaks
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
