Slanted Story on ABC?

[Michael_C]

I watched a report on ABC World News Tonight on Friday. The report was about how people are ordering viagra over the internet and how unsafe it is to buy drugs this way. I felt the story was not objective. Why didn’t ABC show the elderly woman with a heart condition that has to choose between her medicine and food? For some people the risk is really not a choice, it’s the only option. I am also bothered by the fact that the main advertisers on ABC World News are Cialis, Levitra and Allegra. These companies are basically ABCs customers and I feel they were watching out for their customer on this report.

Whether Republican or Democrat the fact is there is no real free market for medicinal drugs in the U.S. and that is the real story.

If I am seeing this wrong please let me know. I welcome your comments

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

First I must say, were you surprised that network news story would be slanted?

I saw this story and do not agree with you on it though.

The story was not about the high price of medication, it was about how low cost medication can be harmful. This viagra over the internet is not made with any oversight. Its not like they were buying it from Canada. They were buying it over the internet and it was made just for that.

I would add, that drugs like viagra, should not be part of medicaid. A person can live without sex. Only drugs for life threating conditions should be covered. Really I think insurance would be more affordable if life style things were taken out.

 

[Michael_C]

ByzCath:

First I must say, were you surprised that network news story would be slanted?

I saw this story and do not agree with you on it though.

The story was not about the high price of medication, it was about how low cost medication can be harmful. This viagra over the internet is not made with any oversight. Its not like they were buying it from Canada. They were buying it over the internet and it was made just for that.

I would add, that drugs like viagra, should not be part of medicaid. A person can live without sex. Only drugs for life threating conditions should be covered. Really I think insurance would be more affordable if life style things were taken out.

Hi BuzCath, There really was a problem with the way this was reported, because the message I got was “Don’t order drugs over the internet”. I know many poeple who do and it seemed like ABC was helping out there customers.

Peace.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Michael C:

Hi BuzCath, There really was a problem with the way this was reported, because the message I got was “Don’t order drugs over the internet”. I know many poeple who do and it seemed like ABC was helping out there customers.

Peace.

Well I got a different message.

“don’t order drugs over the internet from unknown sources. Only order though reputable sources.”

Anyways, how many low income people who can not afford medications can afford a computer and an internet connection? Not only is that a high expense but it can be seen by some as a luxury.

I know the media is biased but not everything that comes out of them is tainted.

This story was about the spam and Microsoft and the drug maker who makes viagra and their attempts to shut down those who make fake viagra with no oversight who are hurting people.
And again, this story was about viagra. The need of viagra is not a life threatening issue. Another luxury.

 

[caroljm36]

Michael C:

. Why didn’t ABC show the elderly woman with a heart condition that has to choose between her medicine and food? For some people the risk is really not a choice, it’s the only option.

Haven’t they done that one to death alraedy? It sounds refreshing that for once they didn’t show the worst, most pathetic case. That’s exactly the kind of emotional tactics that end up with lousy laws being passed.

 

[Chickamauga]

caroljm36:

Haven’t they done that one to death alraedy? It sounds refreshing that for once they didn’t show the worst, most pathetic case. That’s exactly the kind of emotional tactics that end up with lousy laws being passed.

This idea that lots of seniors are having to choose between medicine and food is a myth. Go into the poorest part of Appalachia and you’ll find most seniors there have a pension with some kind of medical suppliment as well asSocial Secuirty. Plus, they actually own their own homes.

The people complaining who want socialistic national healthcare make more than 30,000 annually and drive SUVs. They have everything they want except health insurance because they refuse to give up getting that new Navigator or Escalade to buy it. They are making poor choices and would be able to afford insurance if they so chose.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why do some prescription drugs cost so much?

Because the American consumer is forced to bear the whole burden of drug Research and Development, while other nations get a free ride. John E. Calfee in an article entitled “The High Price of Cheap Drugs” pointed out;

" American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20. This reflects a large and growing disparity in research and development expenditures. In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8 billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion)."

In other words, in just a decade, the European nations (and Canada) succeeded in throwing away their lead in drug R&D.

We do *NOT ***want to choke off R&D in the US. Every one of us will need drugs at some time, and we want the latest developments in drugs.

By buying drugs over the internet from Canada, we are not only putting ourselves at risk, but we are importing the disasterous Canadian and European price controls.

The answer is to call their price controls what they are – unfair trade practices – and get them to pai their fair share of R&D.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

vern humphrey:

Why do some prescription drugs cost so much?

Because the American consumer is forced to bear the whole burden of drug Research and Development, while other nations get a free ride. John E. Calfee in an article entitled “The High Price of Cheap Drugs” pointed out;

" American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20. This reflects a large and growing disparity in research and development expenditures. In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8 billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion)."

In other words, in just a decade, the European nations (and Canada) succeeded in throwing away their lead in drug R&D.

We do NOT* *want to choke off R&D in the US. Every one of us will need drugs at some time, and we want the latest developments in drugs.

By buying drugs over the internet from Canada, we are not only putting ourselves at risk, but we are importing the disasterous Canadian and European price controls.

The answer is to call their price controls what they are – unfair trade practices – and get them to pai their fair share of R&D.

You are missing the point.

This news story was not about the high price of prescription drugs nor was it about buying prescription drugs from another country.

It was about spam email that advertises and sells viagra from internet websites where the drug is made illegally and unsafely.

As for the unrelated topic of the USA subsidizing drug research, that is a joke and I am against it. The high price of prescription drugs is not to subsidize research and development, it is for the marketing and profit. The drug companies have a larger profit margin growth than all other industries in the USA.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ByzCath:

As for the unrelated topic of the USA subsidizing drug research, that is a joke and I am against it. The high price of prescription drugs is not to subsidize research and development, it is for the marketing and profit. The drug companies have a larger profit margin growth than all other industries in the USA.

So how come 7 of the top 10 patented prescription drugs were developed in the US, and 15 of the top 20?

Why isn’t the rest of the world developing drugs as fast as we are?

And how do you explain that the European nations outspent the US by 60% BEFORE they introduced drug price controls, and now we outspend them by 40%?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/off_topic.gif
vern humphrey:

So how come 7 of the top 10 patented prescription drugs were developed in the US, and 15 of the top 20?

Why isn’t the rest of the world developing drugs as fast as we are?

And how do you explain that the European nations outspent the US by 60% BEFORE they introduced drug price controls, and now we outspend them by 40%?

That does not change the fact that the drug companies have a high marketing expense now that they can advertize on TV nor does it change the fact that they have the highest profit margin of all industries in the USA.

One way to look at the numbers you state, if they are true, is that when price controls were placed on drugs in other countries that the drug companies rasied prices in the USA to cover that lose, not necessarily for R&D.

Here is a link, New Figures Prove Pharmaceutical Industry Continues To Fleece Americans

http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/soapbox.gif
Just some of what is found at the link.

1. top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in pure profit than the top seven auto companies, the top seven oil companies, the top seven airline companies, and the top seven media companies.
2. Merck, pocketed more in pure profit than all of the airline companies on the Fortune 500 list, and bested the entertainment and construction industries as well
3. the pharmaceutical’s 18.9% profit-to-revenue ratio was, by far, the highest margin of any industry in the nation
4. the 12 pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 made $10 billion more than the top 24 motor vehicle industry companies, which includes Ford and GM

But all that is besides the point of this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ByzCath:

That does not change the fact that the drug companies have a high marketing expense now that they can advertize on TV .

Automobile makers advertise on TV. Lawyers advertise on TV. TV companies advertise on TV. Where do you get the idea that drug companies, alone of all companies, shouldn’t?

In fact, advertising is one way most of us get vital information – about refinancing our houses, investing, and health. Why should we be denied that?

If advertising increases the rate of use of a drug, it also pro-rates the development cost. It isn’t a bad thing.

ByzCath:

nor does it change the fact that they have the highest profit margin of all industries in the USA…

Profit by itself isn’t bad. And profit margins are calculated differently – for example, in some industries, you operate on the Customer’s money. There, a 5% profit is standard. When you operate on your own money, a higher margin is justifiable.

ByzCath:

One way to look at the numbers you state, if they are true, is that when price controls were placed on drugs in other countries that the drug companies rasied prices in the USA to cover that lose, not necessarily for R&D…

Then how do you explain that the overwhelming majority of new drugs are developed in the US? And that the US is outspending all Europe in R&D?

ByzCath:

1. top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in pure profit than the top seven auto companies, the top seven oil companies, the top seven airline companies, and the top seven media companies…

Yes, but the pharmaceutical industriy has a lot of smaller companies with lower profits. At the same time, do you really condider the company that develops a drug that cures your cancer to be morally equivallent to the company that shows you Janet Jackson getting her top ripped off?

ByzCath:

1. Merck, pocketed more in pure profit than all of the airline companies on the Fortune 500 list, and bested the entertainment and construction industries as well…

Merck is also giving free drugs to low-income people who have spent their $600 benefit on the Medicare Discount Drug Card.

Are the airlines doing that?

ByzCath:

1. the pharmaceutical’s 18.9% profit-to-revenue ratio was, by far, the highest margin of any industry in the nation.

As I pointed out, the pharmaceutical industry does R&D on their own dime. It’s not exactly the same as the Media, for example.

ByzCath:

1. the 12 pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 made $10 billion more than the top 24 motor vehicle industry companies, which includes Ford and GM.

This is pretty much of a repeat of what you said earlier.

ByzCath:

But all that is besides the point of this thread.

On the other hand, it does show real anger.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

vern humphrey:

Automobile makers advertise on TV. Lawyers advertise on TV. TV companies advertise on TV. Where do you get the idea that drug companies, alone of all companies, shouldn’t?

In fact, advertising is one way most of us get vital information – about refinancing our houses, investing, and health. Why should we be denied that?

If advertising increases the rate of use of a drug, it also pro-rates the development cost. It isn’t a bad thing.

I am only going to comment on this as you show seem to wish to rationalize the rest and ignore the facts as they are.

As for advertising.

Yes you are correct when you state, “Automobile makers advertise on TV. Lawyers advertise on TV. TV companies advertise on TV.”

But tobacco companies do not advertise on TV, alcohol companies (beisdes beer) are great greatly restricted from advertising on TV.

Anyways, you do not need a third party involved to buy a car, a TV, a lawyer but you do need a Doctor to write a prescription for you.

That’s the difference. A doctor prescribes what is best for you. Most people, if not all, are not qualified to pick which prescription drug is best for them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ByzCath:

I am only going to comment on this as you show seem to wish to rationalize the rest and ignore the facts as they are…

Can we agree to behave like ladies and gentlemen in this discussion?

ByzCath:

As for advertising.

Yes you are correct when you state, “Automobile makers advertise on TV. Lawyers advertise on TV. TV companies advertise on TV.”

But tobacco companies do not advertise on TV, alcohol companies (beisdes beer) are great greatly restricted from advertising on TV…

So because things that are BAD for you can’t be advertised, you take the position that things that are GOOD for you shouldn’t be advertized either?

ByzCath:

Anyways, you do not need a third party involved to buy a car, a TV, a lawyer but you do need a Doctor to write a prescription for you.

That’s the difference. A doctor prescribes what is best for you. Most people, if not all, are not qualified to pick which prescription drug is best for them.

Right – and people are so stupid and feckless that they shouldn’t know about matters pretaining to their own health?

For the good of the people, we must keep them in the dark.