Well, I don't really hate them or care about them to any extent, but I think its for two main reasons.
1. Their lobbyists are extremely strong.
2. The focus on their industry is to produce new products, not reduce cost of current products.
- I would do the same thing. Lowering profits is a terrible strategy. Buuuuut... I think this is a huge issue against them.
I disagree. I don't think it is an issue against them, I think it is a huge issue in support of concurrent government investment.
And that's the fact that the US pharmas in many cases explicitly mark up human drugs to the Nth degree.
His example he always gave was nitroglycerin pills - the same exact drug packaged and only legal to sell for horses, 5c a pill yet the human dosage was $50 a pill.
And the only difference being that the cheap horse pill had extra filler - dosage was identical of active ingredients and fillers were identical, just more for the horse pill to make it larger.
But there is a reason for that; the massive cost of bringing a human drug to market. Again, you aren't paying for the cost of the raw material. Most of the cost is not the manufacturing process, it is the massive investment and all the failed drugs that it took to get to that point. I'm not an expert on nitroglycerin but I'm sure that the clinical trials for human use of that drug is a lot higher cost than for horses. These drugs don't magically pop into existence, it takes like I said, 12 years and $1 billion on average these days.
I feel the "keeping people sick" nonsense is just that, there's always going to be some that push forward to cure things - but the pricing model - especially when so much goes towards advertising which statistically leads to quite a bit of misprescribing - you've got problems.
Again the pricing model is what the market sets because of the high risk inherent in the industry. You can ask why a company must make a specific drug cost so much, and the reason is that they are making up for the 95% of other projects that will fail. With such a potential for financial loss (a single promising drug failing clinical trials can tank a companies stock) there needs to be similarly high potential for profit.
I don't see why people's lives should be in the hands of "businesses like any other." We don't contract our police force, firefighters, public schools, etc. out to capitalistic businesses because we understand that those things are necessary for a safe and healthy society.
Fine then push for more government investment in medicine. What does this have to do with private companies? What would be accomplished by destroying private pharmaceuticals? Why can't you build up a government system beside the private one instead of tearing down the private one?
Drugs are not a zero sum game. It's not like a certain drug will eventually be discovered by someone, and therefore private companies should not be involved because we don't want that someone to be motivated by profit. It is very likely that if those companies weren't involved that drug would never exist. So if you want better drugs, push for more government investment in drug research and leave pharmaceuticals alone.
So why is it OK when drug companies are paid for each use of their drug,
Because it is a product they invented and which would not exist without them. Take away the possibility of high reward and you take away the incentive of high risk investment. What is the alternative? That the drug never be discovered in the first place?
when the fact that the drug is used REQUIRES people to continue to get sick and not have adequate preventative care?
This has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies.
Their business model need you to be sick, that's what's wrong with it.
People are going to be sick regardless. Unless you are somehow a conspiracy theorist who thinks pharma companies deliberately make people sick in which case I have no desire to talk to you.
Fittingly, Gawker is now banned from Reddit. Interesting how Reddit's "free speech" nonsense only lasts as far as publicity and money are concerned.
Reddit has a policy that personal information is not allowed to be posted under any circumstances. I agree with this policy even if some people really are scumbags. I fully understand reddit's owners not wanting to allow their site to turn into a staging ground for lynchings. If someone posts a video of a bully then yeah that kid deserves to be punished... by the proper authorities. Not by the internet making his life and his families life a living hell.
Like most systems of justice, sometimes scumbags don't get what they deserve in the interest of protecting the innocent. I'm surprised that you would support the posting of personal information on the internet with the intent of bullying that person, given your personal knowledge of how bad bullying can be. Yeah someone may be a scumbag or a bully, but you don't think that situation could be reversed? I wouldn't think it is very far fetched to someday hear of a story of a bully eventually taking their own life after their bad behavior was exposed. And that would be a tragedy as well. The right thing to do is to let the school or the authorities sort it out.
A lot of people don't seem to know how the pharmaceutical industry works, and just how high risk it is. It takes around 12 years and $1 billion to bring a drug to market. When you pay for a drug, you aren't paying for the material, you are paying for all the failed drugs that they tested along the way. Pharmaceutical companies invest massive amount of money into incredibly long term plans by business standards. This high risk environment is why you pay so much for drugs. Only a few new drugs come out worldwide each year. Do you see yet why drugs can be expensive?
On average when a drug target is identified they must screen up to 1 million different chemical compounds to get "hits" that give drug activity. From there they mave have up to 1000 "lead" molecules. Then they optimize that lead and may end up with 10-200 compounds. Here up to 90% of these compounds fail. From there they submit maybe 5 to preclinical trials. Then a few of those might make it to the enormously expensive clinical trials. Even now 1 out of 3 drugs fails in phase 1 clinical trials. If the drug fails at this point then the company could take a hit of hundreds of millions of dollars lost. The reality is that over 95% of pharmaceutical projects fail.
So lets say a pharmaceutical company has brought a drug to market after over a decade and almost a billion dollars. They want to see maximum return on their risky investment, and that means they have a few options.
1) Repackage it with another drug to give some sort of synergistic effect.
2) Change the enantiomeric composition of the drug. Drugs are often "chiral" meaning their mirror images are different and will give different biological effects.
3) Change the method of administration (inhaler, injection, etc).
Thats why you see so many "rebrandings" of drugs these days. It is a way to increase profit on their risky investment. The catch? In order to patent ANY of these changes the drug company must once again go through the rigorous process of drug validation by government regulators. Contrary to the popular belief that these companies can just slap on a new label and make more money, they must demonstrate that this "new" drug gives some sort of enhanced therapeutic effect.
And of course they would pursue this. They have just invested a billion dollars in this drug when they had no idea if it would actually work out. You want to complain about drug companies? Fine. But at least understand WHY they do what they do. It is mostly related to the enormous amounts of money they must spend to bring a drug to market, meaning once they get a blockbuster drug they (rightfully) milk it for all its worth. If you take away their ability to make money on their high risk investment then they may not be able to make any new drugs in the first place.
Should the government maybe have a larger hand in pharmaceuticals to ensure adequate supply of unprofitable drugs? Sure, I would be thrilled with that. But I don't think we should meddle with the pharmaceutical industry. They are a business like any other, and just because they make drugs doesn't mean they are uniquely required to be charitable with their products. If the alternative is that no drugs get made at all, I'd rather have the current system.
I just don't understand why so many people rage against big pharma when they make a profit off of a drug that wouldn't exist without that company.
It isn't just fox. other people noticed biden's smirkness. being loud and obnoxious turns people off. we will have to see if that affects biden.
Neither was to impressive from what i saw. even with a hand pick liberal as a moderator. biden still didn't impress.
he came off grumpy and angry that isn't good. Ryan seemed calm and cool.
We get it. Conservatives want to convince Democrats that they should tie one hand behind their back and not be passionate. That way they can criticize them for that. And if they are passionate they can be criticized for that too. It's time to realize you can't ever please these people and just forget about their opinions.
The thing is you can't really give as much detail as you would like since there is no way that you will probably get them through congress. Romney is a true Govenor. he sets a frame work of what he wants done and lets congress fill in the details.
I see you've bought Romney's excuses hook line and sinker. The math is not arithmetically possible, yet we are just supposed to accept the word of these big spending conservatives that it will all be fine. I don't think so.
Mystery's calling it a draw. Fox is complaining about Biden's smile - apparently he was too mean. That sounds like a Biden win to me.
On specifics, even the moderator was curious.
I'm actually I little baffled at just how far they are willing to take this secrecy about their plan. I thought that once the debates started they would be forced to come out with specifics. It just AMAZES me that they get away with just saying "nope, 20% cut but don't worry it won't increase the deficit and we refuse to tell you how" over and over again, every time they are asked.
All Ryan did was respond with platitudes. Which obviously is the Republican response to anything since their platform has no substance, but it was especially clear with Biden hounding him on specifics and calling out his lies.
Anyone else notice that even in the national debates Ryan absolutely REFUSES to give details of their tax plan? I don't know why the American people aren't up in arms about this. You're a smart guy bLatch. How can you fall for this?
Forbes seems to disagree with that article. (Fair notice: I didn't watch the debate, so all I have to go on is articles. People who watched it will have na obviously firmer stance for any opinon on the results).
This is all I'm seeing from Republicans. Ryan had NO substance last night and Biden dominated the dialogue. The idea that Ryan in any way won is laughable spin from the right.
Just a quick statment. I really don't care for a rebuttle but just to make a point. What a lot of people are seeing as "out of control" with Biden some people may see "passion". That was what was lacking in the presidential debate and it was Biden's job to put that back into the run.
Exactly. Romney didn't go up in the polls because he took away support from Obama. Obama stayed about the same and republicans got more excited which brought him closer to the president.
Biden excited liberals tonight. That was his mission and boy did he accomplish it.
I disagree. I don't think it is an issue against them, I think it is a huge issue in support of concurrent government investment.
But there is a reason for that; the massive cost of bringing a human drug to market. Again, you aren't paying for the cost of the raw material. Most of the cost is not the manufacturing process, it is the massive investment and all the failed drugs that it took to get to that point. I'm not an expert on nitroglycerin but I'm sure that the clinical trials for human use of that drug is a lot higher cost than for horses. These drugs don't magically pop into existence, it takes like I said, 12 years and $1 billion on average these days.
Again the pricing model is what the market sets because of the high risk inherent in the industry. You can ask why a company must make a specific drug cost so much, and the reason is that they are making up for the 95% of other projects that will fail. With such a potential for financial loss (a single promising drug failing clinical trials can tank a companies stock) there needs to be similarly high potential for profit.
Fine then push for more government investment in medicine. What does this have to do with private companies? What would be accomplished by destroying private pharmaceuticals? Why can't you build up a government system beside the private one instead of tearing down the private one?
Drugs are not a zero sum game. It's not like a certain drug will eventually be discovered by someone, and therefore private companies should not be involved because we don't want that someone to be motivated by profit. It is very likely that if those companies weren't involved that drug would never exist. So if you want better drugs, push for more government investment in drug research and leave pharmaceuticals alone.
Because it is a product they invented and which would not exist without them. Take away the possibility of high reward and you take away the incentive of high risk investment. What is the alternative? That the drug never be discovered in the first place?
This has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies.
People are going to be sick regardless. Unless you are somehow a conspiracy theorist who thinks pharma companies deliberately make people sick in which case I have no desire to talk to you.
Reddit has a policy that personal information is not allowed to be posted under any circumstances. I agree with this policy even if some people really are scumbags. I fully understand reddit's owners not wanting to allow their site to turn into a staging ground for lynchings. If someone posts a video of a bully then yeah that kid deserves to be punished... by the proper authorities. Not by the internet making his life and his families life a living hell.
Like most systems of justice, sometimes scumbags don't get what they deserve in the interest of protecting the innocent. I'm surprised that you would support the posting of personal information on the internet with the intent of bullying that person, given your personal knowledge of how bad bullying can be. Yeah someone may be a scumbag or a bully, but you don't think that situation could be reversed? I wouldn't think it is very far fetched to someday hear of a story of a bully eventually taking their own life after their bad behavior was exposed. And that would be a tragedy as well. The right thing to do is to let the school or the authorities sort it out.
On average when a drug target is identified they must screen up to 1 million different chemical compounds to get "hits" that give drug activity. From there they mave have up to 1000 "lead" molecules. Then they optimize that lead and may end up with 10-200 compounds. Here up to 90% of these compounds fail. From there they submit maybe 5 to preclinical trials. Then a few of those might make it to the enormously expensive clinical trials. Even now 1 out of 3 drugs fails in phase 1 clinical trials. If the drug fails at this point then the company could take a hit of hundreds of millions of dollars lost. The reality is that over 95% of pharmaceutical projects fail.
So lets say a pharmaceutical company has brought a drug to market after over a decade and almost a billion dollars. They want to see maximum return on their risky investment, and that means they have a few options.
1) Repackage it with another drug to give some sort of synergistic effect.
2) Change the enantiomeric composition of the drug. Drugs are often "chiral" meaning their mirror images are different and will give different biological effects.
3) Change the method of administration (inhaler, injection, etc).
Thats why you see so many "rebrandings" of drugs these days. It is a way to increase profit on their risky investment. The catch? In order to patent ANY of these changes the drug company must once again go through the rigorous process of drug validation by government regulators. Contrary to the popular belief that these companies can just slap on a new label and make more money, they must demonstrate that this "new" drug gives some sort of enhanced therapeutic effect.
And of course they would pursue this. They have just invested a billion dollars in this drug when they had no idea if it would actually work out. You want to complain about drug companies? Fine. But at least understand WHY they do what they do. It is mostly related to the enormous amounts of money they must spend to bring a drug to market, meaning once they get a blockbuster drug they (rightfully) milk it for all its worth. If you take away their ability to make money on their high risk investment then they may not be able to make any new drugs in the first place.
Should the government maybe have a larger hand in pharmaceuticals to ensure adequate supply of unprofitable drugs? Sure, I would be thrilled with that. But I don't think we should meddle with the pharmaceutical industry. They are a business like any other, and just because they make drugs doesn't mean they are uniquely required to be charitable with their products. If the alternative is that no drugs get made at all, I'd rather have the current system.
I just don't understand why so many people rage against big pharma when they make a profit off of a drug that wouldn't exist without that company.
We get it. Conservatives want to convince Democrats that they should tie one hand behind their back and not be passionate. That way they can criticize them for that. And if they are passionate they can be criticized for that too. It's time to realize you can't ever please these people and just forget about their opinions.
I see you've bought Romney's excuses hook line and sinker. The math is not arithmetically possible, yet we are just supposed to accept the word of these big spending conservatives that it will all be fine. I don't think so.
I'm actually I little baffled at just how far they are willing to take this secrecy about their plan. I thought that once the debates started they would be forced to come out with specifics. It just AMAZES me that they get away with just saying "nope, 20% cut but don't worry it won't increase the deficit and we refuse to tell you how" over and over again, every time they are asked.
2) Make Warren Buffet fall in love with me.
3) Acquire 9 person harem with rest of pill.
4)....
5) Profit!
I was asking about your general support of Republican candidates. Their stonewalling on their tax plan is not new.
Anyone else notice that even in the national debates Ryan absolutely REFUSES to give details of their tax plan? I don't know why the American people aren't up in arms about this. You're a smart guy bLatch. How can you fall for this?
This is all I'm seeing from Republicans. Ryan had NO substance last night and Biden dominated the dialogue. The idea that Ryan in any way won is laughable spin from the right.
Warning, this article says the S word. However, it gives probably the most accurate analysis I have seen yet.
Biden took the supposedly intellectual brains of the GOP and crushed him with facts and reality.
I think the biggest thing to come out of this debate is recapturing momentum for Obama and the abortion issue.
Exactly. Romney didn't go up in the polls because he took away support from Obama. Obama stayed about the same and republicans got more excited which brought him closer to the president.
Biden excited liberals tonight. That was his mission and boy did he accomplish it.