S
Socrates92
Guest
How so? (I’m not American btw, just curious about it.)
- Status
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
As I see it, there is the perception of three villains in this story. How villainous each entity is I don’t know anymore. I once thought I did, but now I take nothing for granted. Still, in the mainstream public’s view, a public raised and conditioned on mistrust, the biggest villain is the private insurance companies, who are believed would literally kill their own mother to turn a profit and should never have become so entrenched in health care in the first place. The second villain is Big Pharma, allied with the once-noble medical profession, whose corporate greed is virtually unbounded, although at least they do turn out some medications which can save people’s lives. The third villain in the picture is the FDA, whose regulation is thought to be needed to insure a semblance of safety and efficacy, yet whose inefficiency has only increased over the years, and so, inadvertently, may harm more people than it helps.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
It’s hard to not see an industry as villainous that chose profits over people, as the case with opioids.
And a lot of people who work in big pharma make huge amounts of money that, let’s face it, wouldn’t be available if tax dollars didn’t help people pay for medical care.
So if big pharma wants to show its compassionate side, it’s got a whole lot of work to do.
And a lot of people who work in big pharma make huge amounts of money that, let’s face it, wouldn’t be available if tax dollars didn’t help people pay for medical care.
So if big pharma wants to show its compassionate side, it’s got a whole lot of work to do.
H
HollowMan
Guest
Our government is based on a principle called “enumerated powers”. That is, the government can only do those things the Constitution says it can do. The list of things the government can do is found in Article 1, Section 8 and is very limited. The power to regulate food and drugs isn’t found anywhere on that list. Thus, Unconstitutional.
D
DIERM
Guest
If so, the criticism is based in ignorance of the industry, and the workings of the free market economy we Americans claim to love. The industry is actually a microcosm of the free market…people invest while taking risks and benefit or lose (regardless of where the money comes from) based on the outcome of that risk, and US consumers are not “forced” to buy drugs or widgits, or any other goods…its supply and demand…if the US consumer (or consumer regardless of where they come from) doesn’t see the product having utility worth the price they won’t buy it, and those investors (foreign nationals or American) will not reap financial benefits…and as far as foreign nationals having greater access to generics, we could have the same access here if, as a nation, we decided to change regulations…so in a nutshell, Americans are not disadvantaged because of foreign nationals, if Americans are disadvantaged, it is the doing of Americans not of those darn foreigners…it just seems we have gotten used to making ourselves out to be the victims of foreigners for any financial woes from taxes to healthcare to insurance costs to drug manufacturing.
A
adgloriam
Guest
Your arguments were one-sided.
- The current price of insulin has become life-threatening for low income individuals.
- The recent Hepatitis C treatment is said to have been mainly developed by a government employee that went to sell it to private interests. (State had no direct return on investment.)
- Universities outside the US contribute to cutting edge research. They are State funded, private pharmaceutical research couldn’t operate without their contribution.
- Saying the US bears all the expenses isn’t true since the vast majority of consumers and thus the market is exterior to the US. (you speak as if other countries don’t have pharmaceutical research.)
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
- Low income individuals have always and everywhere had a higher death rate. What do you propose?
- OK, so? Let’s separate the inventor from the devloper and marketer. Still had to go through FDA processing.
- Never said they didn’t.
- Never said the US bears ALL the cost. If I implied that, I am sorry.
A
adgloriam
Guest
Real production cost is almost negligible (the original US researchers sold the patent for 1$ - on matter of principle). Traditionally provided free in many countries. Voters would make governments fall -on matter of principle- if they didn’t leverage their weight against the pharmaceuticals in regulating price.
The 3 letter acronym doesn’t magically justify everything. Profiteering (you cited 2-3bil investment) the consumers in one or two countries alone would cover all expenses. In this case a matter of life-and-death, when the affected brought the cases to public attention governments themselves said the negotiation process couldn’t be leveraged. (so it’s actually a matter of politics, elected regulators are entitled to strong-arm private companies back. That’s what happened in South Africa when the government lifted the patent on anti-retro-virals.)
3-4. It’s good to know the trillions invested into research going out the tax-payers pocket by way of European grants aren’t neglected. The lions-share of research originates from tax-payers, not private initiative.
It’s not one sided brother. We’d have to ask how many billions were invested into rhetorically legitimizing pharmaceuticals. I’d say regulate market prices and tax the heck out of profit margins.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I propose we act like proper human beings and take care of them. Or would that be too socialist?
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Let the buyer beware. That’s what I say. After enough die from dangerous drugs, people will learn not to use it. Darwinism. That’s what made America great.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
That’s what I always say about cancer drugs. If someone is unlucky enough or foolish enough to catch cancer, then whose problem is it? Just take your lumps and die if you can’t afford the price.
After all, some researcher somewhere needs to make his Mercedes payment.
I tell ya, I’m comin’ out swingin’ on this. I will offer no olive branches to people who defend the medical-industrial complex’s non-Catholic Christian greed.
Earlier this week my sister was diagnosed with leukemia. Two days later her husband lost his job.
And I’m thanking God for the ACA and laws about pre-existing conditions because they need to get new medical benefits now.
Last edited:
M
maryjk
Guest
Even before ACA, they wouldn’t have been without coverage. And would have been able to pick up insurance. To say nothing of COBRA.
H
HollowMan
Guest
Well, that, too, but food and drug companies already have an incentive to see that their products are safe and effective. They don’t need the government to do that.
H
HollowMan
Guest
Very sorry to hear about your family’s troubles. But you’re still wrong.
D
DIERM
Guest
Drug companies are not Non-Profits, or Not-for-Profits. They work to pay investors for their risks…essentially you are blaming capitalism…what you should be clamoring for is a new charity similar to CRS that raises charitable contributions to finance research and development of new drugs…I would give as freely as I do to CRS if there was such an organization…would you?
And just because a drug manufacturer, or any business for that matter, does not make them agents of “Non-Catholic greed” (Whatever that means)…leaves me believing there is “Catholic greed”, which is somehow okay (God forbid)?
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
What I meant is that greed, putting one’s own desire for material wealth over the welfare of others, is not a Catholic way of life.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
COBRA is very expensive.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Really? Would the free market have prohibited lead from paint or gasoline? How many people were killed in industrial accidents before OSHA? Food safety should be left up to manufacturers? Air quality left up to coal companies? Why not let children buy cigarettes?
I’m not against capitalism, but I don’t think most corporations have the public’s best interest at heart.
T
Theo520
Guest
Your diatribe completely ignored the points I made.
I advocated for an increased free market in the purchase of drugs. If the same drugs could be bought in Canada or Mexico, the artificial high price paid by US consumers would evaporate. As a response, I expect the ‘free market’ would lead to drug companies normalizing pricing for their products and thus all consumers globally would contribute to their massive marketing spend, and R&D.
Big pharma spends massive amounts on lobbying, to influence regulations that subvert the free market
Last edited:
H
HollowMan
Guest
Oh, yeah. There’s nothing companies love more than being driven out of business because their customers no longer want to buy their unsafe products.
- Status