Republican with Pre-Existing Condition Thanks Pres. Obama for AFCA

[Benvolio]

Federal budget plays a significant role.

Yes but after research private money pays the millions required for clinical tests, regulatory approval (which is not always successful), then manufacturing facility, manufacture distribution and sale.

 

[opinterph]

Yes but after research private money pays the millions required for clinical tests, regulatory approval (which is not always successful), then manufacturing facility, manufacture distribution and sale.

The federal government sponsors what percentage of pharmaceutical R&D costs for research within the US?

 

[jbrown329]

So what do you conclude from that? Drug compamies do not develop drugs? Clearly they do. That they should not recover the investment or make a profit? There would be no new drugs in this country. A drug company has a limited time to recover its research and development cost before the patent expires and other companies can make it without having spent those costs. And, by selling a larger volumn, the company can sell at a lower unit price. Advertising is essential if the company is to recover its investment and make the drug available to the public.

If the fucking drug companies were treated like alcohol, you would not see MILLIONS of dollars of advertising. Money spent to PUSH the latest drug to idiot consumers. Money spent that if they didn't spend, the drug costs would be substantially lower. They would STILL be making a profit.

 

[jbrown329]

Yes but after research private money pays the millions required for clinical tests, regulatory approval (which is not always successful), then manufacturing facility, manufacture distribution and sale.

How much profit is good enough for you? A 50 cent pill selling for $400? It is flat out greed.

 

[Kabluey]

Yes but after research private money pays the millions required for clinical tests, regulatory approval (which is not always successful), then manufacturing facility, manufacture distribution and sale.

The profits still being debated are the funds remaining after all of those expenses.

And that's not even addressing the fact that drug manufacturers pursue more profitable lifestyle type cures (erections, hair, weight, wrinkles), before cures for depressingly mundane diseases.

 

[Benvolio]

The profits still being debated are the funds remaining after all of those expenses.

And that's not even addressing the fact that drug manufacturers pursue more profitable lifestyle type cures (erections, hair, weight, wrinkles), before cures for depressingly mundane diseases.

All those expenses are paid FROM profits from prior drugs. Without substantial profits, new drugs could not be developed.

 

[Benvolio]

Part of the purpose of the advertising is to warn the public of possible side effects. Under out screwy legal system, if the company does not warn of all the possible side effects of a good drug, they can be held liable, not only for the damage to an individual but for punitive or punishment damages. The liberal lawyers usually argue that the public should have been advised. And of course the lawyers get a third or better of the money. Recently a jury in Missouri award 72 million against Johnson and Johnson for talcum powder allegedly causing ovarian cancer. 62 million punishment for selling the baby powder. Trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to democrats and democrats block attempts at tort reform. Lawsuits, beloved of democrats, raise prices of drugs and other items. In the employment area, lawsuits reduce wages, as part of the cost of labor is diverted to the lawsuit lottery and the lawyers and politicians.

 

[Benvolio]

The federal government sponsors what percentage of pharmaceutical R&D costs for research within the US?

I don't know, but a better question would be how much of government funded research results in development of something usable. Without the discipline of the need to make a profit, the bureaucrats are just spending other peoples money, often on foolish ventures, and with no accountability.

 

[Kabluey]

Part of the purpose of the advertising is to warn the public of possible side effects. Under out screwy legal system, if the company does not warn of all the possible side effects of a good drug, they can be held liable, not only for the damage to an individual but for punitive or punishment damages. The liberal lawyers usually argue that the public should have been advised. And of course the lawyers get a third or better of the money. Recently a jury in Missouri award 72 million against Johnson and Johnson for talcum powder allegedly causing ovarian cancer. 62 million punishment for selling the baby powder. Trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to democrats and democrats block attempts at tort reform. Lawsuits, beloved of democrats, raise prices of drugs and other items. In the employment area, lawsuits reduce wages, as part of the cost of labor is diverted to the lawsuit lottery and the lawyers and politicians.

Only NZ and the USA allow drug manufacturers to advertise, out of developed countries.
There's no rational reason to advertise necessary drugs, only unnecessary ones.

Drug manufacturers can disclose side effects to doctors and patients at the time of prescription. Instead they're trying to push the prescription of drugs with often harmful side effects to unqualified consumers.

The only reason they have to disclose these in their advertising is because of omissions and harm caused by advertisements previously.

If a product does cause cancer, would you prefer the manufacturer could continue to market and advertise it without restriction? That might be evil.

 

[Benvolio]

Only NZ and the USA allow drug manufacturers to advertise, out of developed countries.
There's no rational reason to advertise necessary drugs, only unnecessary ones.

Drug manufacturers can disclose side effects to doctors and patients at the time of prescription. Instead they're trying to push the prescription of drugs with often harmful side effects to unqualified consumers.

The only reason they have to disclose these in their advertising is because of omissions and harm caused by advertisements previously.

If a product does cause cancer, would you prefer the manufacturer could continue to market and advertise it without restriction? That might be evil.

Again, drug companies have a limited time during which to recover their investment before the patent runs out. The time starts with the issuance of the patent,but they cannot sell it until after approval which takes years.
Doctors do not advise of all side effects and people do read the disclosure statements.
Almost all drugs can have side effects which are for most people, off set by the benefits. But it is easy for someone injured to claim that he would not have taken the drug if he had known. And juries, like you are prejudiced against companies.
The final decision to prescribe the drug is with the doctor. Advertising can advise of the good and bad qualities, but the patient always needs the doctors decision.
Remember, foreign drug companies advertise in the US and derive a big part of their revenue from sales in the big US market without price controls. There would be fewer new drugs, US and foreign without advertising.

 

[Benvolio]

Here is an easy compromise. The next time, tell the doctor you only want drugs devoloped and manufactured by altruistic democrats untainted by any motive to profit. Problem solved.

 

[jbrown329]

A good Pharmacist can warn you about side effects. And every time I get a prescription filled, I get printed (by the pharmacy) information about the drug. I already know about the medications that I currently take. So I tell them to save the paper, I don't need it. If it's a new prescription, I do take the printout. I then come home and look the drug up online. I use 3 sources for information. The NIH, WebMD and the Mayo Clinic.

 

[rareboy]

Again, drug companies have a limited time during which to recover their investment before the patent runs out. The time starts with the issuance of the patent,but they cannot sell it until after approval which takes years.
Doctors do not advise of all side effects and people do read the disclosure statements.
Almost all drugs can have side effects which are for most people, off set by the benefits. But it is easy for someone injured to claim that he would not have taken the drug if he had known. And juries, like you are prejudiced against companies.
The final decision to prescribe the drug is with the doctor. Advertising can advise of the good and bad qualities, but the patient always needs the doctors decision.
Remember, foreign drug companies advertise in the US and derive a big part of their revenue from sales in the big US market without price controls. There would be fewer new drugs, US and foreign without advertising.

Just because you keep repeating this nonsense doesn't make it true.

Drug companies don't make all their money in the US.

And a lot of state sponsored research goes into developing the really important drugs.

So while pharmaceutical companies are focussed on boner pills...it is the public that is funding most of the critical research for cancer drugs and vaccines for Ebola or Zika.

But do continue to spread your lies.

 

[Kabluey]

Again, drug companies have a limited time during which to recover their investment before the patent runs out. The time starts with the issuance of the patent,but they cannot sell it until after approval which takes years.
Doctors do not advise of all side effects and people do read the disclosure statements.
Almost all drugs can have side effects which are for most people, off set by the benefits. But it is easy for someone injured to claim that he would not have taken the drug if he had known. And juries, like you are prejudiced against companies.
The final decision to prescribe the drug is with the doctor. Advertising can advise of the good and bad qualities, but the patient always needs the doctors decision.
Remember, foreign drug companies advertise in the US and derive a big part of their revenue from sales in the big US market without price controls. There would be fewer new drugs, US and foreign without advertising.

You're completely wrong, again.

Drug companies don't have to advertise. They choose to.
Because they encourage the public to request drugs they don't need from their doctors, the government restricts what they can say. Because they were making people ill, and killing others.
Doctors and in particular, pharmacists are very well trained to spot potential problems. Their job is complicated by patients who simply 'want' a pill, or a particular brand of a generic drug.

Read my comment about cars and costs. The USA is the most lucrative single market for cars. By your logic US consumers would be paying more because of their demand for improvements. But the opposite happens.

You still, honestly don't understand what profit is. Pfizer, for example, pays around $8 billion in dividends to shareholders each year.

Why do you think US daytime TV is filled with ads for products as simple as aspirin, rebranded as stroke medication, for example? That's not innovation.

 

[Benvolio]

I don't know, but a better question would be how much of government funded research results in development of something usable. Without the discipline of the need to make a profit, the bureaucrats are just spending other peoples money, often on foolish ventures, and with no accountability.

Just because you keep repeating this nonsense doesn't make it true.

Drug companies don't make all their money in the US.

And a lot of state sponsored research goes into developing the really important drugs.

So while pharmaceutical companies are focussed on boner pills...it is the public that is funding most of the critical research for cancer drugs and vaccines for Ebola or Zika.

But do continue to spread your lies.

You lie. I did not say they make all their money in US. I agreed the public funds much research. It is a lie the companies are focused on boner drugs. You made that up.
Next time tell the doctor you want only government developed drugs.

 

[LittleDove]

So what do you conclude from that? Drug compamies do not develop drugs? Clearly they do. That they should not recover the investment or make a profit? There would be no new drugs in this country. A drug company has a limited time to recover its research and development cost before the patent expires and other companies can make it without having spent those costs. And, by selling a larger volumn, the company can sell at a lower unit price. Advertising is essential if the company is to recover its investment and make the drug available to the public.

What investment? The vast majority of research is funded by the government. Then the amount put into research by private universities should be put in. That cuts the drug company's stake in the product even further.

How many times do they need to recover those R&D costs -- especially since those costs can be excluded from taxable profits?

And if you're going to argue that the investment in R&D should be recouped, shouldn't that be done by the people and/or entities who've put up the overwhelming majority of the funds in the first place? (and hint, again, it's not the drug companies)

There's one other problem with the 'recovery of costs' argument as made by the drug companies. They base their position, at least in part, on the premise that they could make more money if, instead of putting that money into research, they invested it into securities ... which is bizarre on any number of levels.

 

[LittleDove]

Next time tell the doctor you want only government developed drugs.

If you're going to use that as an arguing point, you seem to be setting yourself up for failure.

 

[Kabluey]

They base their position, at least in part, on the premise that they could make more money if, instead of putting that money into research, they invested it into securities ... which is bizarre on any number of levels.

Companies that haven't developed winners recently have engaged in mergers and takeovers of companies that have, to fortify their positions. They've even taken to justifying price increases on the economic value of lives saved, rather than costs of research and production.

When you're operating like that, you're effectively taxing America.