It sounds great for the drug companies to pay huge amounts for research, development and testing new drugs, only to have the government limit the price, but it will end or impair development. If people can't afford the new drugs, they are not any worse off. We should not end the development just because some people cannot afford the drugs.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Healthcare going forward
- Thread starter Stardreamer
- Start date
It sounds great for the drug companies to pay huge amounts for research, development and testing new drugs, only to have the government limit the price, but it will end or impair development. If people can't afford the new drugs, they are not any worse off. We should not end the development just because some people cannot afford the drugs.
We've been through all that claptrap before and gave you more-than-ample proof that your argument is a lie. They spend far more on advertising than on R&D, and their profits are far more than their R&D and advertising budgets combined. Your argument just doesn't cut it, and nobody here except you and your friends believe that the ridiculously-high cost of drugs is because of R&D. Nobody.
ballcaphair
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2004
- Posts
- 3,605
- Reaction score
- 90
- Points
- 0
Absolutely nobody, ever. President Obama was always a moderate and perhaps gave Big Phama a chair too close to the table. That is still no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I doubt that trumpcare, or whatever, will affect anyone in congress. That's an assumption on my part. I'd bet on it though.
If the US government controls prices, development of new drugs will be unfeasible.
Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated Congressional Staff: In Brief (Congressional Research Service; January 13, 2017)
That is complete and total bullshit, and Canada is proof that it is. Total bullshit.
No, Canadian companies get the bulk of their profits from US sales. Price controls in US will impair Canadian development as well.
If you have proof of that statement, please, feel free to share it.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Posts
- 62,062
- Reaction score
- 15,623
- Points
- 113
Drug profits are different because they often are patented, the result of research and development. Prices are controlled in the relatively small Canadian market, but unlimited in the much larger US market. A company selling in both markets will obviously make more profit from the much larger, uncontrolled market than in the smaller, price limited market. DUH. See this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2000/05/why_do_drugs_cost_less_in_canada.htmlIt's difficult to prove "profits" but if you go by exports as a percentage of Canada's GDP, it's not a true statement. Canada's largest sector is domestic real estate investments.
Source.
*In other words, the remaining 68.4% of GDP is consumed domestically in Canada.
Price controls in theUS will impede drug research and development world wide.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Posts
- 62,062
- Reaction score
- 15,623
- Points
- 113
No, it just means that you'll see less pharmaceutical advertisements for competing drugs to manage leaky bladders, limp penises and irritable bowels. We've already established that marketing, free samples and advertisement consumes most of the budget of these companies.
And they might actually focus on curing disease instead of taking a lifetime of medication to manage disease so that their shareholders make more money from the chronic illness of American consumers.
Of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies in the world, none are based in Canada. And of those companies, none are spending more on R&D than they spend on marketing.
ballcaphair
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2004
- Posts
- 3,605
- Reaction score
- 90
- Points
- 0
I believe that is under the ACA in January. Do you, or does anybody, have any honest information about the proposed plan. There is so much smoke and mirrors, name calling and finger pointing that I'm confused. I'd like to have an informed opinion when I write my congressmen.
So you think the drug companies are throwing away and wasting money on advertising. It is amazing that liberals think they know more about making a profit that the businesspeople who spend their lives learning and concentrating on how to do it, knowing that they may lose their jobs if they do not make a profit. More importantly, the rectitude of business men is measured by an objective criterion;profits or not. Liberals can espouse the same notions year after year with no profit discipline to answer to.
Advertising performs two critical function not readily apparent. Any patents are limited to a certain number of years after disclosure of the patent info BUT the company still cannot sell until FDA approval, which takes years. So there is a narrow window of time for the company to recover costs, before the patent expires and other companies can sell for a lower proce, having no R and D costs. Second even after Doctors prescribe the drugs, if side effects occur, lawyers will sue, saying the company should pay enormous punitive damages for not advising the patient personally of the side effects. The advertisements then are necessary to inform patients of the potential effects.
The companies are not wasting the advertising money. They are spending it because they have to.
I should add that the more units are sold, the less R&D expense that must be recovered for each unit. If you spend $ 500 million to develop a medicine and expect to sell only a million in the patent recovery window before it can be sold as generic by others, each unit has to cost bear a $500 R&D cost plus manufacturing etc. But, it the company expects to sell 500 million units in the patent window, each needs only to carry a $1.00 R&D cost. Adtvertising to sell more units in the patent window helps bring down the cost to the patient.
It's the fact that you keep shoving that R&D shit down our throats when they clearly spend much more on advertising, and both combined are a very small portion of the profits the companies procure.
Americans are at their mercy, and controlling prices makes life easier for Americans. Once upon a time, Americans used to come to Canada regularly to buy their life-giving drugs at a fraction of the price for the same drugs in the states. The drug companies put a stop to that, and Americans suffer.
By they way, you've argued yourself into a contradiction. Canada's market is much smaller than the American market. The prices should, by your argument, be higher. But they're not. And Canadian drug companies are still making a profit even though they're selling less of their product in comparison to the United States and lower prices, and they do it without advertising, which is completely contrary to your arguments.
Canada 'owns' our drug companies. Your drug companies 'own' America.
Our system works and I offered it as proof that your statement was bullshit. You still have not offered anything to prove that it doesn't.
Stardreamer
auribus teneo lupum
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Posts
- 5,044
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
Personally, I think a far more effective approach is to just let the government agencies that procure drugs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, VA, DoD, etc. be able to use their purchasing powers to negotiate prices. That alone would have a tremendous effect.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Posts
- 62,062
- Reaction score
- 15,623
- Points
- 113
There's three pieces of legislation under discussion:
- The ACA- current law known as "Obamacare"
- The AHCA - the House bill that passed
- The BCRA - the Senate bill that hasn't been voted on.
There's a couple of sites that do a very good, impartial analysis. The most detailed is Kaiser Family Foundation's site. They've broken down all three bills into a table with categories for the various changes.
A less detailed analysis is on Modern Healthcare's site.
Incidentally, with all the focus on the individual market, there's a section in the ACA that requires disclosure of "payments" by pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers make to providers and teaching hospitals. That goes away as part of the repeal, if it passes. Want to know why your doctor recommends certain medications or treatments, look them up.
Yes and I don't "think" it, I know it.
Patients don't write their own prescriptions. Advertising just creates a market where patients self-diagnose and then take expensive medications when they could, in most cases, take a generic medication that does the same thing for about 30% of the cost of a brand name medication.
What's happening in the market today is that drug companies are creating markets by creating new chronic conditions to treat with expensive medications. They spend millions of dollars to bribe pharmaceutical benefit management companies to list their products as "preferred tier" medications. They spend millions to lobby legislative bodies to produce legislation to facilitate their pricing.
Eliminate the advertising and the drugs will be significantly cheaper, the unforeseen complications fewer and the overall cost of health insurance will be lower. Reform the patent system and the FDA rules for generic medications and you will see costs decrease immensely.
You'd be better off speculating less about the minds of liberals and instead spend the time learning about the healthcare delivery system in the US. Anyone with any knowledge of the US healthcare system- liberal, moderate or conservative- is aware that pharmaceutical companies are for-profit companies who are adept at manipulating the FDA rules and who are charging exorbitant amounts for their products. These costs are passed on to us as insurance premiums and as fixed costs factored into the products that we buy. Lower the cost of drugs and you'll see your insurance premiums decrease and you will see US-made products decrease in cost.
And clever enough to make commercials in which it takes longer to list the side effects than it does to advertise the drug... AND still end up facing lawsuits a year or so later. Even then, they've made enough money to research the drug, advertise the hell out of it, lobby the government and pay off the FDA, settle class-action lawsuits, and still have fatter bank accounts before starting all over again.
Drugs are a very profitable business in the United States.