Healthcare going forward

[Kulindahr]

As I have pointed out part of the purpose of the advertising expense is to infor of possible side effects, real or speculative. Judgments have been awarded against Johnson and Johnson in amounts of 70 million and 417 million for failure to inform women that talcum powder might cause ovarian cancer-- even thought that is not proven. That is part of the reason drug companies need large profits and prices are so high It is the reason trial lawyers are among the biggest donors to the democrat party and why democrat block tort reform.

Informing of side effects is only a purpose of advertising because government has mandated it.

As for tort reform, hardly any proposals that have been put before Congress have had much to do with reality; they've had far more to do with trying to stop lawyers from suing anyone at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

And once again, confronted with facts, you drop into ad hominem and baiting...

Look again. I was responding to gsdx ad hominem, devoid of facts.

LOL

gsdx made no ad hominem, and ben's is borderline at worst.

 

[gsdx]

I think he has a perfect grasp of the economics -- he just disagrees with the morality of how they do things.

And it's a good criticism: pharma companies don't research because they're looking for things to help people, but because they want a profit. THus many things that could be highly beneficial go unresearched because the companies see no big profits from them.

And I have serious misgivings about the testing they claim to do. Does the FDA even read the research and testing? It makes me doubt that they do with all of the lawsuits we hear about every day. Then again, when they create a new drug for heartburn and make hundreds and hundreds of millions, or even a billion plus, in profit, a lawsuit with a $50 million judgement makes it well worth their time and money to kill people.

 

[Benvolio]

I think he has a perfect grasp of the economics -- he just disagrees with the morality of how they do things.

And it's a good criticism: pharma companies don't research because they're looking for things to help people, but because they want a profit. THus many things that could be highly beneficial go unresearched because the companies see no big profits from them.

Yeah. He thinks we are talking about usury.
Research, development and regulatory approval of a new drug costs hundreds of millions and law suits for side effects millions more; it comes from the big profits from prior drugs.

 

[Benvolio]

Informing of side effects is only a purpose of advertising because government has mandated it.

As for tort reform, hardly any proposals that have been put before Congress have had much to do with reality; they've had far more to do with trying to stop lawyers from suing anyone at all.

So you agree the advertising is necessarily. At a minimum damages should be limited to the damages suffered. There is no conceivable justification for a $417 million award to one woman a third to her lawyer.

 

[Kulindahr]

And I have serious misgivings about the testing they claim to do. Does the FDA even read the research and testing? It makes me doubt that they do with all of the lawsuits we hear about every day. Then again, when they create a new drug for heartburn and make hundreds and hundreds of millions, or even a billion plus, in profit, a lawsuit with a $50 million judgement makes it well worth their time and money to kill people.

The FDA has lacked the capability of proper testing for some time, and under Trump things aren't likely to get any better. And the pitiful amounts of fines are certainly not an encouragement for the pharma companies to behave!

 

[Kulindahr]

I just heard on the radio that three in five Americans now want the federal government to guarantee health care for everyone. Apparently the GOP is the best friend Bernie Sanders has in his quest for Medicare for all, because every time the Republicans in D.C. fumble on the topic again the result is more Americans opposing them: it was only two in five Americans wanting the Federal government to guarantee health care back in March.

As a result of my own agonies with the insurance game and the ridiculous games we had to play with my mom's health, I've done a serious turn-around and stand with Bernie on this one. Health care as we currently have it is barbaric, a system barely worthy of the eighteenth century.

 

[ballcaphair]

From the front lines, I believe that big pharma is all about profit. That profit factors in lawyers, advertising, R & D (whic is a red herring) and allowing our clients to fall through the cracks. It's not about health; it's about money.

 

[gsdx]

It's not about health; it's about money.

Especially when so many of them do more harm than good. I love the drugs which actually make the conditions they're supposed to treat even worse.

 

[KaraBulut]

From the front lines, I believe that big pharma is all about profit. That profit factors in lawyers, advertising, R & D (whic is a red herring) and allowing our clients to fall through the cracks. It's not about health; it's about money.

That's probably a statement that could be made about most of the corporations in US healthcare... even the ones who claim to be "not-for-profit".

 

[Benvolio]

That's probably a statement that could be made about most of the corporations in US healthcare... even the ones who claim to be "not-for-profit".

Who does not work for profit? A company spending hundreds of millions to research, develop, and test new drugs without making a substantial profit would soon go broke.

 

[ballcaphair]

Who does not work for profit? A company spending hundreds of millions to research, develop, and test new drugs without making a substantial profit would soon go broke.

A reminder: R&D is a red herring. The auto industry is a good example of sound business. Fuel efficient, safe, cleaner, and a power plant of 4 cylinders, rather than eight. Cars cost more, but they contain their own R&D. Customers can afford them and that is how to run a business.

 

[Benvolio]

A reminder: R&D is a red herring. The auto industry is a good example of sound business. Fuel efficient, safe, cleaner, and a power plant of 4 cylinders, rather than eight. Cars cost more, but they contain their own R&D. Customers can afford them and that is how to run a business.

Since you do not value or want to pay for research and development, the solution is simple. Stick with the older generic drugs, which can no longer charge for R&D.

 

[opinterph]

… the older generic drugs, which can no longer charge for R&D.

What prevents revenue derived from older generic drugs from being used to support R&D?

 

[gsdx]

Who does not work for profit? A company spending hundreds of millions to research, develop, and test new drugs without making a substantial profit would soon go broke.

This is NOT ad hominem.

You do not read. We have proved over and over again that R&D is about half the money spent on advertising, and advertising costs double-digit millions while profits are closing in on the billion-dollar mark.

Please show us at least ONE instance in which a drug company spends hundreds of million of dollars on R&D for a new drug. Just one.

And please do not attack my intelligence again.

 

[kallipolis]

We have proved over and over again that R&D is about half the money spent on advertising, and advertising costs double-digit millions while profits are closing in on the billion-dollar mark.

Good observation for there is no such reality as an impoverished pharmaceutical corporation.

 

[Benvolio]

What prevents revenue derived from older generic drugs from being used to support R&D?

Nothing. My point is that once a patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the drug, using the formula and processes which must be disclosed in the patent application. The generic companies pay no part of the R&D so they can charge much less. The patented company must reduce its prices to compete with the generics and in that sense can no long charge for its R&D.

 

[gsdx]

^ R&D is part and parcel of the cost of doing business, from drugs to cars to Legos to deodorant to new chip flavours to toilet paper. Can you imagine charging $22.99 for a new flavour of potato chips or $12 a roll for a softer toilet paper?

Drug companies get away with the highest prices and highest profits in the world because they convince people that they need their product, and the people will pay those exorbitant prices. And then there's the regular, life-giving prescription drugs that people actually need but can't afford to buy. Why do you think so many Americans used to drive to Canada to buy their drugs? Even adding in expenses and travel costs, it was cheaper.

But the American drug companies didn't like Canada cutting into their profits and lobbied the government to put a stop to it. Profits were more important and the welfare and health of Americans, and it has nothing to do with R&D.

That is the reality.

 

[Benvolio]

^ R&D is part and parcel of the cost of doing business, from drugs to cars to Legos to deodorant to new chip flavours to toilet paper. Can you imagine charging $22.99 for a new flavour of potato chips or $12 a roll for a softer toilet paper?

Drug companies get away with the highest prices and highest profits in the world because they convince people that they need their product, and the people will pay those exorbitant prices. And then there's the regular, life-giving prescription drugs that people actually need but can't afford to buy. Why do you think so many Americans used to drive to Canada to buy their drugs? Even adding in expenses and travel costs, it was cheaper.

But the American drug companies didn't like Canada cutting into their profits and lobbied the government to put a stop to it. Profits were more important and the welfare and health of Americans, and it has nothing to do with R&D.

That is the reality.

That is totally wrong. The average cost for a major drug company to bring a new drug to market is $4 Billion dollars and as much as 11 Billion. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/
The patent is usually good for 17 years but it cannot be marketed until FDA Approval which takes years. Then the company must recover its R&D before the patent runs out and generics can compete without the R&D costs.
Countries like Canada limit the price at which it can be sold, so most of the R&D casts must be born by US consumers while foreigners get a relatively free ride. Worse if a foreign company develops a drug, they sell in the US without price controls so our consumers pay their R&D as well.

 

[KaraBulut]

That is totally wrong. The average cost for a major drug company to bring a new drug to market is $4 Billion dollars and as much as 11 Billion...

Which is something that you've claimed before that has also been proven false, yet you continue to try to present it as fact.

The numbers that most of the pharmaceutical companies cite came from a study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development which is a research group that is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. When the Tufts paper was released, it was universally panned by independent researchers. I particularly liked the statement from Médecins Sans Frontières who said that if you believe the numbers from the Tufts study, you probably also believe that the earth is flat.

The Federal Trade Commission looked at the numbers a while back and their study said that the cost of developing a new drug and bringing it to market is between $802 million and $868 million. That's a lot less than $4-11 billion dollars. It also doesn't account for the fact that many of the drugs that are brought to market are based upon publicly-funded research (often the NIH) or research underwritten by charitable foundations. Quite a few of the high-priced biologicals on the market were developed based upon university research.

Even with all of these "costs" the drug companies are still netting about 25% in profits overall and their stock prices continue to increase.