US blocks cheap drugs agreement

[Jaakko]

Arrrgh, what have I done to have this nutball invasion descend upon my innocent little thread?

[Sava]

Sorry, I've been Fezzing... but this issue just pisses me off so much I can't help it

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry, I've been Fezzing... but... I can't help it

Understood. There, there.

[David Floyd]

Socialized medicine works

I'm sorry, you're telling me that England's NHS is a GOOD system? Or in Canada, where people come over the border to the US to go to the doctor?

There need not be any socialist propaganda other that a stating of the facts.

Oh, well, then if we're talking about FACTS, the FACT is that socialized medicine would require large tax increases. These tax increases are politically unpopular (and probably a bad idea, economically, anyway), and Americans do not tend to like heavy, oppressive taxation - EVEN AT THE "COST" of not having as big of a welfare state as Western Europe has.

But ignorance and conformity is king in the US... whoever puts out the best ad campaign would win.

Well, obviously you socialists aren't very good at selling your solution to the public. I'd recommend that y'all take some PR classes, and then mold your ideas into something politically feasible in the US.

Hell, my ideas are just as unpopular, but at least I admit it.

[Sava]

::sigh::

[TCO]

My work is done.

[mactbone]

Look Sava, I'll give you a hypothetical based on a real life situation.

Some guy owns a private company that manufactures RVs. The company earns 6 million in profit. That looks great! Then there's the 40% corporate tax - oh well, it's still 3.6 million. Then there's the inventory which is obviously not liquid, and that's another 2 million.

So, instead of 6 million, you have 1.6 million. That's about 27% of what you started with. This particular company also has larger than average profit margins. So you have to remember that there are many things that we don't always know about that could explain decisions.

[Sava]

yup GP, nothing makes me quit a discussion faster than irrelevant, stubborn arguments from Floyd...

[David Floyd]

How is my argument irrelevant? Methinks you know that I'm a better at debate, so you aren't gonna go down that road.

[Sava]

... I was wrong... MacTBone's poor attempt at explaining the way a corporation works is in that category, too

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How is my argument irrelevant? Methinks you know that I'm a better at debate, so you aren't gonna go down that road.

Yes, David that's it... let me bow to you now

[Jaakko]

In a futile attempt to return to sanity, how large a part of the pharm. companies research budgets are subsidised by the govt., directly or indirectly through university grants and such?

[Sava]

probably much more than they should be...

[SpencerH]

Pharmaceutical companies spend a lot on 'research' but most (but not all) of that money is for the clinical trials (a.k.a. paying physicians buckets full of money) not for the basic research. Virtually no pharmaceutical company, and certainly not the big-boys, takes a product from concept to market anymore. Almost all of the basic research is paid for by taxpayers.

[Sava]

That seems terrible anti-capitalist if the drug companies don't even pay for their own research and clinical trials. Funny how the capitalists don't believe in welfare for the people, yet are strangely silent in terms of corporate welfare. And yes, I would consider this corporate welfare.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GP


Pharm research is directly driven by expectations of future profits. If you want to give all those drugs to Africans, you should pay the pharma companies for them. But don't expect companies to give stuff away.

Beleive me, every time somebody proposes price controls in the US, bitotech companies go uinder in the US. If you want to limit pharma profits, less money will be plowed into research. It is that simple. Of course if you are an idiot, you won't understand that. Just be a little baby than. Someone who thinks that the world owes them a living.

Agreed.

The issue of compulsory licensing of patents has divided the Europeans from American for 200 years. We Americans believe the patent right is absolute, while the Europeans believe that the patent right is not. The European view, unfortunately, has been adopted elsewhere in the world where patents are often viewed Xenophobicly as "imperialist" tools to suppress local industry.

Overall, the US patent system has resulted enormous investment in new technology not matched anywhere else in the world. We should be very hesitant about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

[TCO]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Pharmaceutical companies spend a lot on 'research' but most (but not all) of that money is for the clinical trials (a.k.a. paying physicians buckets full of money) not for the basic research. Virtually no pharmaceutical company, and certainly not the big-boys, takes a product from concept to market anymore. Almost all of the basic research is paid for by taxpayers.

1. A lot of basic stuff still gets done in small companies. And is than liscensed (i.e. paid for).

2. The justification for basic reasearch funding for the govt is that the results are diffuse.

3. If you want to seize the value of pharma research by eliminating patents (effectively via price control) expect less investment. It's just that simple. Also other industries may invest less in new ventures if they fear this type of policy may spread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Two centuries ago, no man on earth would ever think of throwing away the very life of millions of people, by simply patenting a few drugs.

Two centuries ago people died much younger and diseases such as TB and the Flu would kill thousands every few years.

The pharmacutical companies have helped greatly in preventing epidemics. I notice that people don't suffer from Polio, TB, Smallpox, etc. anymore. And people don't die from the Flu anymore either.

We can slow medical research, but that will just lead to certain diseases (like Alzhiemers) existing looong after they should have been eradicated.

Btw, socialized health care might 'work' in some areas, but even in those countries you don't have the government doing medical research or making pills. It's just stupid to equate the two, but that's par for Sava then, isn't it?

[Ramo]

Intellectual property should be protected only when it can be economically and socially justified, as it is an inherently authoritarian concept. There is absolutely no way biological intellectual property laws can be justified with respect to third world states suffering serious health problems. It certainly wouldn't be hurting innovation, as there is little development of biotech in these regions in the first place (most of it involves finding indigenous plants, etc. for Western firms which isn't considered legally protected anyways). Intellectual property is an economically viable concept only after a country is adequately developed.

As for the possibility of an export of these cheaper drugs to the West, this trade should simply be rigorously interdicted.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


Pharm research is directly driven by expectations of future profits. If you want to give all those drugs to Africans, you should pay the pharma companies for them. But don't expect companies to give stuff away.

Beleive me, every time somebody proposes price controls in the US, bitotech companies go uinder in the US. If you want to limit pharma profits, less money will be plowed into research. It is that simple. Of course if you are an idiot, you won't understand that. Just be a little baby than. Someone who thinks that the world owes them a living.

Biotech companies are mainly focused on producing drugs that don't do any better than old drugs. And how is giving cheap drugs to places which wouldn't otherwise have bought them costing the biotech companies money? Price controls so that people who would buy them anyway (like most of residents of West) is a completely separate issue.

[KrazyHorse]

Mr. Big economist man...

[Ramo]

Patents can be really damaging to industry a lot of times. For instance, look at France when they tried product patents a century ago. It's not a great suprise that their chemical industry was quickly destroyed and the industry moved to Switzerland. Strong patents (as in the status quo) are economically worse than no patents.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GP

1. A lot of basic stuff still gets done in small companies. And is than liscensed (i.e. paid for).

The smaller companies do some (more basic) research, but in my experience the initial discoveries come from the public sector.

2. The justification for basic reasearch funding for the govt is that the results are diffuse.

3. If you want to seize the value of pharma research by eliminating patents (effectively via price control) expect less investment. It's just that simple. Also other industries may invest less in new ventures if they fear this type of policy may spread.

I'm not supporting the removal of patents from companies that bring drugs to market, I'm just pointing out the misinformation about how much the drug companies spend on 'research' and what that entails. I've seen too many high priced junkets for the physicians to attend 'meetings' as well as other perks. That money is included in drug companies 'research' costs.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Intellectual property should be protected only when it can be economically and socially justified, as it is an inherently authoritarian concept. There is absolutely no way biological intellectual property laws can be justified with respect to third world states suffering serious health problems. It certainly wouldn't be hurting innovation, as there is little development of biotech in these regions in the first place (most of it involves finding indigenous plants, etc. for Western firms which isn't considered legally protected anyways). Intellectual property is an economically viable concept only after a country is adequately developed.

As for the possibility of an export of these cheaper drugs to the West, this trade should simply be rigorously interdicted.

The amount of innovation in the third world has never been brought up as a reason for opposing the sales. (
You're attacking a red herring that you brought up.) Drug firms are justifiably opposed ot losing profits. That is what drove them to make the drugs. Gray marketing is a real problem. Don't just wave your hand at it.

[TCO]

Originally posted by SpencerH


The smaller companies do some (more basic) research, but in my experience the initial discoveries come from the public sector.



I'm not supporting the removal of patents from companies that bring drugs to market, I'm just pointing out the misinformation about how much the drug companies spend on 'research' and what that entails. I've seen too many high priced junkets for the physicians to attend 'meetings' as well as other perks. That money is included in drug companies 'research' costs.

Usually that is a marketing expense. (Shmoozing doctors.)

If you think the engine of creation is public discovery, perhaps drugs should be taxed and the money earmarked for public research. But don't underestimate what the drug companies do. You and I know that if we had government development of all those drugs. All the way to market, it would be a lot slower, more political and less innovative, and MORE expensive.

[faded glory]

For those of you whose english is a FOURTH LANGUAGE.

Let me help you understand a few points.

1)Drugs in the US are expensive.
2)Drugs everywhere else are cheap
3)Drug companies have to make up huge losses from socialized medicine abroad, by raping US buyers.

Sorry. Dont wanna pay for it. Nada.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


Biotech companies are mainly focused on producing drugs that don't do any better than old drugs. And how is giving cheap drugs to places which wouldn't otherwise have bought them costing the biotech companies money? Price controls so that people who would buy them anyway (like most of residents of West) is a completely separate issue.

Biotechs:

1. Amgen (go look up their heart drug.) They are a biotech that became a multi-billion dollar company. With justification.

2. The drugs are not completely identical. Certainly the market doesn't find them identical. (And let the market decide. Nobodies putting a gun to anybodies head saying you have to use the new drugs.) When you are well, like you, they may just be similar drugs. If you have terminal cancer, like my Mom, you are VERY interested in having some different drugs to try when one of them isn't working.

3. Lots of innovative apporaches have been and are being worked on by biotech companies. It is a very cool industry.

Profits:

1. Obviously the pharma companies disagree on the likelihood of grey marketing or of losing money. I have been very tangentially involved with some of the efforts to find a workable solution. They are interested in letting the drugs be used to save lives if possible witout damage to their shareholders. See the article on the McKinsey and Company website on AIDS support for Africa (I will look for it. Used to be up there...but that was 2 years ago.)

2. The point about price controls is an ANALOGOUS one Kitty. Things that tend to limit their compensation or "take the prize" after they have risked and won, will limit their incentive to risk. If you think all the innovation in that field is done, than I guess you could advocate siezing their winnings. But I would not be so sanguine if I were you. There is still a lot of room for growth in the ongoing life science/pharma field. And the profit motive will drive it. Look at how many blockbuster drugs came out of USSR versus out of Merck. Wealth drives work, Kitty.

[axi]

That says more about the sanitation and hygiene of Europe than it does about pharmaceutical companies.

No it doesn't. These diseases come to Europe from 3rd world countries mostly along with the immigration wave and the more diseased people there are in the 3rd world, the more come to Europe and the more widespread these diseases are in Europe. If the pharmaceuticals deny drugs from the 3rd world, no amount of sanitation can save European populations from contacting these at the very end.

Cyprus f.e. has by far the highest AIDS rate in all developped world. The problem is the big numbers of visitors from Africa where AIDS is rampant and not their sex practices.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger
Mr. Big economist man...

Physics geek.

[TCO]

Originally posted by faded glory
For those of you whose english is a FOURTH LANGUAGE.

Let me help you understand a few points.

1)Drugs in the US are expensive.
2)Drugs everywhere else are cheap
3)Drug companies have to make up huge losses from socialized medicine abroad, by raping US buyers.

Sorry. Dont wanna pay for it. Nada.

Thank you for representing the argument (and mentalitiy) of your side so well. Go play with Sava.