Inflated Cost of AIDS Medicine

[saevel25]

I can see two sides of the debate over the prices of medicines.  On one hand, the pharma companies spend immense amounts of money, developing, patenting, and testing lots of different drugs in order to find just one or two that are safe and effective enough to market.  it can takes years, even a decade, to get through to the point where they can actually sell something, so the 20 (to 25) year patent becomes effectively a 10 to 15 year exclusive.  In the meantime, the other companies are working their backsides off to come up with something to take the place of the current drugs in the marketplace.  A manufacturer may only have a year or two to try to turn a profit on the whole venture before his own drug becomes "last year's model".  I know it seems wrong, but people and companies DO make money off of sick people.  If they didn't make money, they wouldn't be doing it.  Even with all that, I have no idea how they choose to price these drugs.  Its a very strange system we have.  If we want to take the profit motive out of drug research, we could let the government take care of all research, but does anyone think THAT would be a good idea?

That or you force them to ball non-profit.

A nonprofit organization (NPO, also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization that uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's directors (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the distribution constraint.[2] The decision to adopt a non profit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption, charitable status and so on.

Basically all the profits would go back into research.

That or you could cap the profits allowable to be distributed away from research at something like 10%. In the end the pharm business is not going away. So it might drive out the cut throat guys, but someone would be willing to make a living in this sort of business model.

[jcjim]

I can see two sides of the debate over the prices of medicines.  On one hand, the pharma companies spend immense amounts of money, developing, patenting, and testing lots of different drugs in order to find just one or two that are safe and effective enough to market.  it can takes years, even a decade, to get through to the point where they can actually sell something, so the 20 (to 25) year patent becomes effectively a 10 to 15 year exclusive.  In the meantime, the other companies are working their backsides off to come up with something to take the place of the current drugs in the marketplace.  A manufacturer may only have a year or two to try to turn a profit on the whole venture before his own drug becomes "last year's model".  I know it seems wrong, but people and companies DO make money off of sick people.  If they didn't make money, they wouldn't be doing it.  Even with all that, I have no idea how they choose to price these drugs.  Its a very strange system we have.  If we want to take the profit motive out of drug research, we could let the government take care of all research, but does anyone think THAT would be a good idea?

Do you know first hand that these pharmas spend immense amounts of money developing these drugs or are you listening to them tell they are?

It doesn't sound like you believe that these drug companys are some if not most profitable companys in the world.

Do you believe that should be liability free for all the drugs they produce no matter how many people they kill or injure?.

[krupa]

If we want to take the profit motive out of drug research, we could let the government take care of all research, but does anyone think THAT would be a good idea?

The Huffington Post has been running a series of articles about Johnson and Johnson and how they created a power drug and then illegally promoted it for treating kids and the elderly.  http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/

It should be no secret that pharmaceutical companies do what they can to maximize their profits through questionable actions.  For example, if I remember correctly, if a drug commercial doesn't tell you what the drug is for, they don't have to tell you the side affects.  And when they do tell you the side affects, they speak so quickly you can't even be sure you heard "excessive diarrhea"  (also spelled right on the first try... I'm on frie today!)  or not.

My point being that maybe having government-funded, not-for-profit pharma research isn't the worst idea in the world.  After all, it's not like the members of Congress will be grabbing white coats and beakers.

And the other question is, what is the motivation of the actual researchers?  Sure, the company wants a profit, but why is the lab rat doing it?  Maybe he/she would be happy to take a government paycheck to help cure cancer.

[DaveP043]

Yeah, I just don't know what a good solution is.  It seems like most innovation in just about any field is fueled by the goal of potential future profits.  Certainly Ping (and I'm only using them as an example since we've learned a bit about their R&D; effort) isn't researching and developing new clubs just for their personal fulfillment, or for the overall well-being of golfers.  I think the hard thing for many of us to accept is the idea of someone "making money off our suffering".

Do you know first hand that these pharmas spend immense amounts of money developing these drugs or are you listening to them tell they are?

It doesn't sound like you believe that these drug companys are some if not most profitable companys in the world.

Do you believe that should be liability free for all the drugs they produce no matter how many people they kill or injure?.

Do you believe that the medications just come falling out of a tree somewhere, with little or no investment?

Of course many of the pharma companies make money, I hope its the ones that I've invested in.  You see, I'm greedy too, I want my investments to do well so I can retire and play more golf.

And the matter of liability is something I haven't addressed in any way.  I DO believe that a bad result is not always caused by negligence on the part of the manufacturer.  Sadly, our court system does not always want to accept that, we're always looking for someone to blame when anything goes badly.

[jcjim]

The Huffington Post has been running a series of articles about Johnson and Johnson and how they created a power drug and then illegally promoted it for treating kids and the elderly.  http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/

It should be no secret that pharmaceutical companies do what they can to maximize their profits through questionable actions.  For example, if I remember correctly, if a drug commercial doesn't tell you what the drug is for, they don't have to tell you the side affects.  And when they do tell you the side affects, they speak so quickly you can't even be sure you heard "excessive diarrhea"  (also spelled right on the first try... I'm on frie today!)  or not.

My point being that maybe having government-funded, not-for-profit pharma research isn't the worst idea in the world.  After all, it's not like the members of Congress will be grabbing white coats and beakers.

And the other question is, what is the motivation of the actual researchers?  Sure, the company wants a profit, but why is the lab rat doing it?  Maybe he/she would be happy to take a government paycheck to help cure cancer.

I agree with what you say and regarding government funded not for profit pharms research I can't  imagine anything better

The USA healthcare is close to 2 1/2 times more expensive than the next most expensive healthcare in the world. What do we get for it, not one single quality of life issue are we the first in. Our health care system sucks and eats up almost 20% of our GNP...

Every year more and more  people fall through and are no able to afford the insurance costs for healthcare.

[jcjim]

Yeah, I just don't know what a good solution is.  It seems like most innovation in just about any field is fueled by the goal of potential future profits.  Certainly Ping (and I'm only using them as an example since we've learned a bit about their R&D; effort) isn't researching and developing new clubs just for their personal fulfillment, or for the overall well-being of golfers.  I think the hard thing for many of us to accept is the idea of someone "making money off our suffering".

Do you believe that the medications just come falling out of a tree somewhere, with little or no investment?

Of course many of the pharma companies make money, I hope its the ones that I've invested in.  You see, I'm greedy too, I want my investments to do well so I can retire and play more golf.

And the matter of liability is something I haven't addressed in any way.  I DO believe that a bad result is not always caused by negligence on the part of the manufacturer.  Sadly, our court system does not always want to accept that, we're always looking for someone to blame when anything goes badly.

You didn.t answer what I asked of you. Once you do I would more than glad to answer you directly.

[newtogolf]

I agree with what you say and regarding government funded not for profit pharms research I can't  imagine anything better

The USA healthcare is close to 2 1/2 times more expensive than the next most expensive healthcare in the world. What do we get for it, not one single quality of life issue are we the first in. Our health care system sucks and eats up almost 20% of our GNP...

Every year more and more  people fall through and are no able to afford the insurance costs for healthcare.

Ask our Veterans how much they love the health care we provide them with that is managed by the government.  Even better go to a Vets hospital like I did and see what you think of the accommodations our soldiers who were injured while defending our country receive.

[saevel25]

Ask our Veterans how much they love the health care we provide them with that is managed by the government.  Even better go to a Vets hospital like I did and see what you think of the accommodations our soldiers who were injured while defending our country receive.

I think the problem is nearly 1/3rd of the spending on the VA is discretionary. So every time congress gets up to vote on a new budget it can get caught up in limbo.

.

[jcjim]

Ask our Veterans how much they love the health care we provide them with that is managed by the government.  Even better go to a Vets hospital like I did and see what you think of the accommodations our soldiers who were injured while defending our country receive.

Why don't you talk about Medicare it works well. What the Armed services does to the people that fought for this country is criminal but what are you going to do about it. MAYBE GET RID OF THE BUMBS IN CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO CUT EVERYTHING that has anything to do for people and give the money to billionaires and corporations..

[jcjim]

Does everybody know that all the new drugs being manufactured [ and the old reformulated ones ] the drug industry has no liability according to the new laws.

No matter what these drugs do to you, you or your family have no rights to sue.

[Pretzel]

Does everybody know that all the new drugs being manufactured [ and the old reformulated ones ] the drug industry has no liability according to the new laws. No matter what these drugs do to you, you or your family have no rights to sue.

Come on man, you and I both know that is untrue. If a drug passes FDA testing to be approved for the open market then it is generally considered to be safe, but if additional side effects that the company could have prevented appear once it is on the open market, or if the drug has harmful manufacturing issues, the company would indeed be liable. The problem is that many harmful drug side effects are rate and may not always be caught in clinical trials, meaning the company is not negligent because they didn't have any information to tell them it was potentially hazardous in that way.

[newtogolf]

Does everybody know that all the new drugs being manufactured [ and the old reformulated ones ] the drug industry has no liability according to the new laws.

No matter what these drugs do to you, you or your family have no rights to sue.

You're partially right, I believe the Supreme Court ruled on this about 2 years ago.  Generic drug makers are not liable for "defective design".  That means if the drugs patents expire and generic versions of the drug are produced in accordance to the original manufacturers patent filing the generic makers cannot be sued by individuals that suffer the use of such drugs so long as they use the generic manufacturer utilized the same safety label that was used before the drug became generic.

In a separate and unrelated ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that drug companies will be granted total liability protection for injuries and death caused by government mandated vaccines.

Any new drugs developed that are not government mandated vaccines do not get covered by this total liability protection.

[jcjim]

Come on man, you and I both know that is untrue. If a drug passes FDA testing to be approved for the open market then it is generally considered to be safe, but if additional side effects that the company could have prevented appear once it is on the open market, or if the drug has harmful manufacturing issues, the company would indeed be liable. The problem is that many harmful drug side effects are rate and may not always be caught in clinical trials, meaning the company is not negligent because they didn't have any information to tell them it was potentially hazardous in that way.

You are incorrect you need to get the correct information. I'm no longer arguing with anyone in this joint, it's a waste of time, so bone up on your own.

[Ernest Jones]

You are incorrect you need to get the correct information. I'm no longer arguing with anyone in this joint, it's a waste of time, so bone up on your own.

I've been boning up on my own far too much recently. Too much travel away from the wife...

[turtleback]

I read that article too. Yeah, he is gouging folks, but in the article I also read, he was also giving the pills away for free to those with insurance, and/or strapped for money.

I have also read that quite a few political candidates are using his greed to bolster their campaigns by developing a lid on monthly scripts. I think Clinton mentioned $250 as a monthly cap. Sounds good until the pill company drops a few million $$$$ into their campaign funds.

Sounds great until you die because the drug you needed would have cost $300 a month and so was not developed nor manufactured.

No I get that. A lot of times there is only one drug available.

My friend has to pay like $300 a pop for Advair because they are the only company that has been able to develop the an inhaled steroid for asthma. This has been really the only product that has helped him a lot.

Yea, they kinda have a big stranglehold on that specific market.

Maybe there is only 1 because it was hard to develop?  If this was a lucrative niche and they were gouging wouldn't another company develop a competing drug?

Do you know first hand that these pharmas spend immense amounts of money developing these drugs or are you listening to them tell they are?

It doesn't sound like you believe that these drug companys are some if not most profitable companys in the world.

Do you believe that should be liability free for all the drugs they produce no matter how many people they kill or injure?.

Do you prefer Alcoa or the store brand for your hats?

And when they do tell you the side affects, they speak so quickly you can't even be sure you heard "excessive diarrhea"  (also spelled right on the first try... I'm on frie today!)  or not.

Intentional or unintentional THAT is funny!

Why don't you talk about Medicare it works well.

You realize, I hope, that medicare is about taking money from some folks to give to to other folks, something governments have been perfecting for centuries.  Research, on the other hand, is about increasing knowledge and using it to find actual solutions to problems, something that government has been abysmal at for almost as long.

[saevel25]

Maybe there is only 1 because it was hard to develop?  If this was a lucrative niche and they were gouging wouldn't another company develop a competing drug?

Even if it was hard to make. They still had the patent on it. Also, it is difficult to make. If you had a 2nd company the price might be lower until the two companies kinda get close in price to compete evenly.

[jcjim]

Sounds great until you die because the drug you needed would have cost $300 a month and so was not developed nor manufactured.

Maybe there is only 1 because it was hard to develop?  If this was a lucrative niche and they were gouging wouldn't another company develop a competing drug?

Do you prefer Alcoa or the store brand for your hats?

Intentional or unintentional THAT is funny!

You realize, I hope, that medicare is about taking money from some folks to give to to other folks, something governments have been perfecting for centuries.  Research, on the other hand, is about increasing knowledge and using it to find actual solutions to problems, something that government has been abysmal at for almost as long.

You realize that, since we have had deficits since reagan, the government has taken our money and given trillions to billionaires/ corporations that pay $hit for taxes so they can make billions more. We the taxpyers are now responsible for all the deficits not the corporations. And now we have a party trying to take everything so they can give these billionaires and corporations a 7 TRILLION dollar tax break..

Researchers in Pharms don't cure anything they come up with drugs that cost a fortune, fewer and fewer can afford them.

Medicare is paid by all of us so we have health care late in life. And it works period. The problem is these corporate owned hospitals and Insurance Co's are destroying everything. My Cancer cost a bit over $1,220.000 yes that's a million two. Tell me who could afford that..Nobody other than multi millionaires. So what you really have is wealth re distribution, they are taking our wealth and giving it to these corporations.

These corporations are destroying a whole society with no end in sight.

I don't expect for you to answer the above because few here ever do.

[saevel25]

Medicare is paid by all of us so we have health care late in life. And it works period. The problem is these corporate owned hospitals and Insurance Co's are destroying everything. My Cancer cost a bit over $1,220.000 yes that's a million two. Tell me who could afford that..Nobody other than multi millionaires. So what you really have is wealth re distribution, they are taking our wealth and giving it to these corporations.

These corporations are destroying a whole society with no end in sight.

I don't expect for you to answer the above because few here ever do.

Yet more and more doctors have turned down patients who have medicare because the Government undercuts doctors that they can not make a profit on it. This also causes doctors who do have patients with Medicare to charge more for non-medicare insurance.

Also, more and more people are not becoming doctors. The amount of doctors per population is very bad now. With how expensive colleges are now, the required insurance against malpractice, and how the government  undercuts them there is no money for doctors to make and only headaches in being a doctor.

If I had my way. I would say any standard check up is out of pocket. Government should provide full coverage for outlier cases. Like people with cancer. People who get in severe accidents.

If you are a healthy person who goes to the doctor once a year. Pay your $100 dollars for the check up and move on. I would also do something about obesity. I wouldn't link it to BMI, that's stupid. I would say a person who's with in a certain percentage of a target weight, taking into account muscle mass and fat % measured by their doctor should get a tax break each year. If you get healthy you get paid. Honestly, a lot of our problems and our bloated health care system can be fixed by ourselves in how we live our lifestyles. You see corporations are bad. Well USA get into shape and you limit the demand for healthcare.