In article <ctqtvu$gp3@marple.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

We're in an era of massive deficits, ...


Moderate deficits, as measured (as it should be) by percentage of GDP.

... and the parts of it that help the poor, the sick, the old and the children will be decimated.


Hasn't happened yet (Medicare -- up; education spending -- up; Social
Security -- up), but let me know when it happens, 'k?

The whole perscription drug plan is a bonanza for big pharm, and is tl squared for seniors.


You try running a pharmaceutical company, turn out products that people
need, and satisfy your investors. It isn't easy.




steve

In article <swhite-A0EFBB.12461702022005@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:
You try running a pharmaceutical company, turn out products that peopleneed, and satisfy your investors. It isn't easy.


Awww, poor little Pfizer Pharms are highly profitable. And the FDA is
not doing an adaquate job of policing them.

When they start spending as much on R & D as they do on advertising, I
might be willing to listen to their whining about development costs.

I take it Steve, that as you are a conservative, you are opposed to
welfare. This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors,
precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is corporate
welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ...

My dh would make more money if he went to work for a drug company. I am
so proud of him--he won't do it. They do bad science in pursuit of
profit.

And, btw, Burroughs Wellcome did well for many many years running as a not
for profit.

Linda

In article <ctrih4$unr@holmes.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
In article <swhite-A0EFBB.12461702022005@news.uchicago.edu>, Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:You try running a pharmaceutical company, turn out products thatpeople need, and satisfy your investors. It isn't easy. Awww, poor little Pfizer Pharms are highly profitable. And the FDA is not doing an adaquate job of policing them.


The FDA is wrecking them. The pipeline is slowing down, and there are
fewer drugs coming. As a doc that scares me.

When they start spending as much on R & D as they do on advertising, I might be willing to listen to their whining about development costs.


Hokay, friend, a little math: it takes between $400 and 1100 million
dollars, and 7 to 10 years, to get a drug to market -- that amortizes
the inevitable failures and missteps along the way. As a pharma CEO you
have to raise that kind of money frequently. That means you have to sell
paper to Wall Street. Look at the current yield on 10 year Treasury
bonds, add 2 to 3 percentage points to that 'cause you're not as safe as
Uncle Sam, and that's what you've got to promise investors so that
they'll buy your paper.

And that means you'd better have a great drug, and you'd better be able
to sell it. And that means advertising, by the way.

Now then, you figure out how to make that work. Damned straight the
pharma industry makes a good profit. They earned it.

I take it Steve, that as you are a conservative, you are opposed to welfare. ...


You take it wrong, but continue.

... This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors, precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is corporate welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ...


It's not supposed to do a lot for seniors. The only way to do "a lot"
for seniors is to break the bank and cough up a couple hundred billion a
year for comprehensive coverage. For starters, because I guarantee you
that if Uncle Sugar pays, drug costs will go through the roof (just as
they did for the dialysis program, the oxygen for emphysema program,
etc, etc, etc).

Now if you're a fan of socialized medicine, that might suit you fine.

Just be prepared to wait in some real long lines.

My dh would make more money if he went to work for a drug company. I am so proud of him--he won't do it. They do bad science in pursuit of profit.


They do pretty good applied science; not great, but pretty good. I do
basic science. That's not easy either.




steve

In article <steve-A88D32.23274402022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:The FDA is wrecking them. The pipeline is slowing down, and there arefewer drugs coming. As a doc that scares me.

How many more unnecessary deaths from drugs like Vioxx does the American
public need to suffer? The FDA, inadaquate as it is at least is some kind
of balance to the profit motive. Should the public have no federal agency
on their side when drug companies want to push new drugs on the market
with inadaquate or fudged testing so as to increase their profit margins? When they start spending as much on R & D as they do on advertising, I might be willing to listen to their whining about development costs.Hokay, friend, a little math: it takes between $400 and 1100 milliondollars, and 7 to 10 years, to get a drug to market -- that amortizesthe inevitable failures and missteps along the way. As a pharma CEO you

Pharms are among the most profitable companies in the US. They'll
slightly change drug formulae to keep drugs under patent or formulate a
one pill a day version ditto. At least four major drug companies spend
more per year on advertising than they do on research--why, to keep up
that bottom line.

Remember Burroughs Wellcome did great as a not for profit for years.


And that means you'd better have a great drug, and you'd better be ableto sell it. And that means advertising, by the way.

Yeah, yeah, get on t.v. advertise to the public, create an artificial
demand. I'm sure many docs, physician's assistants and nurse
practicioners
go slowly nuts from patients demanding this or that drug that they saw
advertised on tv. They may not even need the drug, or an older, cheaper
generic version might be just as good, but the advertising pushes them to
demand the thing they saw on tv.
Now then, you figure out how to make that work. Damned straight thepharma industry makes a good profit. They earned it. ... This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors, precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is corporate welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ...It's not supposed to do a lot for seniors. The only way to do "a lot"for seniors is to break the bank and cough up a couple hundred billion ayear for comprehensive coverage. For starters, because I guarantee youthat if Uncle Sugar pays, drug costs will go through the roof (just asthey did for the dialysis program, the oxygen for emphysema program,etc, etc, etc).

Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country
negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Even
American insurance companies negotiate lower prices. The people paying
full freight, to keep those balance sheets happy, happy, happy, are those
without insurance. The way to help seniors is for Medicare to negotiate
lower drug prices the same way the VA does. Somehow, the notion of
seniors eating cat food or cutting their pills in half because they are
too damn expensive strikes me as appalling. If it's a choice of quality
of life for the elderly or the bottom line of highly profitable and greedy
drug companies, you can be pretty sure which one I'd pick.
The drug bill that Bush lied about and got passed is corporate welfare
for big pharm. The bill states that the feds are not allowed to negotiate
for lower prices. What lobby group got that stricture put in? I have a
feeling it wasn't the AARP.



They do pretty good applied science; not great, but pretty good. I dobasic science. That's not easy either.

Not according to the expert I'm married to. When profit is the ultimate
motive, good science runs a very poor second.

In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
In article <steve-A88D32.23274402022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:The FDA is wrecking them. The pipeline is slowing down, and there arefewer drugs coming. As a doc that scares me. How many more unnecessary deaths from drugs like Vioxx does the American public need to suffer?


Except that Vioxx saved lives. It virtually wiped out death due to GI
bleeding from NSAIDs -- a serious problem. The Cox-2 inhibitors don't
have the same risk for bleeding as does aspirin, motrin, etc. My GI
colleagues are VERY upset about Vioxx being removed; they're quite
certain that they're going to see more bleeding deaths.

Too bad the FDA didn't take this into consideration -- if only they'd
asked.

The FDA, inadaquate as it is at least is some kind of balance to the profit motive. Should the public have no federal agency on their side when drug companies want to push new drugs on the market with inadaquate or fudged testing so as to increase their profit margins?


Would it be too much to ask that the FDA be competent?

Hokay, friend, a little math: it takes between $400 and 1100 milliondollars, and 7 to 10 years, to get a drug to market -- that amortizesthe inevitable failures and missteps along the way. As a pharma CEO you Pharms are among the most profitable companies in the US. They'll slightly change drug formulae to keep drugs under patent or formulate a one pill a day version ditto. At least four major drug companies spend more per year on advertising than they do on research--why, to keep up that bottom line.


There's nothing wrong with making a profit. You want to sell your paper
on Wall Street, you'd darned well better make a profit.

No profit = no drugs in the pipeline. That simple.

Yeah, yeah, get on t.v. advertise to the public, create an artificial demand. I'm sure many docs, physician's assistants and nurse practicioners go slowly nuts from patients demanding this or that drug that they saw advertised on tv. They may not even need the drug, or an older, cheaper generic version might be just as good, but the advertising pushes them to demand the thing they saw on tv.


Except you're against all forms of advertising by pharmma -- not to the
public, not to the docs, etc, etc.





steve

In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

... This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors, precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is corporate welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ...It's not supposed to do a lot for seniors. The only way to do "a lot"for seniors is to break the bank and cough up a couple hundred billion ayear for comprehensive coverage. For starters, because I guarantee youthat if Uncle Sugar pays, drug costs will go through the roof (just asthey did for the dialysis program, the oxygen for emphysema program,etc, etc, etc). Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.


And do you know why?

Because (yes, I'll tell you :-)

These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- the cost
of producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. They won't
allow pharma to roll in their R & D costs.

Cars would be a lot cheaper if you didn't allow the auto companies to
amortize their R & D. Of course, after a while you wouldn't have any
cars on the market, and you darned sure wouldn't see any advances in
auto technology.

The USA is one of the few large markets in which Big Pharma can recoup
their R & D costs. So they do, no dummies they.

I have a good idea: force the EU to consider R & D costs when set prices
(which is what they do when they 'negotiate') for pharma. Their costs
would go up, and ours would come down (modestly). Make the EU and other
large markets bear their fair share of the burden.




steve

"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-BCAF44.19164108022005@news.uchicago.edu... In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:> ... This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors,> precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is> corporate welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ...It's not supposed to do a lot for seniors. The only way to do "a lot"for seniors is to break the bank and cough up a couple hundred billion
ayear for comprehensive coverage. For starters, because I guarantee youthat if Uncle Sugar pays, drug costs will go through the roof (just asthey did for the dialysis program, the oxygen for emphysema program,etc, etc, etc). Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. And do you know why? Because (yes, I'll tell you :-) These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- the cost of producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. They won't allow pharma to roll in their R & D costs. Cars would be a lot cheaper if you didn't allow the auto companies to amortize their R & D. Of course, after a while you wouldn't have any cars on the market, and you darned sure wouldn't see any advances in auto technology. The USA is one of the few large markets in which Big Pharma can recoup their R & D costs. So they do, no dummies they. I have a good idea: force the EU to consider R & D costs when set prices (which is what they do when they 'negotiate') for pharma. Their costs would go up, and ours would come down (modestly). Make the EU and other large markets bear their fair share of the burden. steve

Why bother with R&D, new drugs, new procedures, etc? What's the point.
Anybody over 30 has one foot in the grave already, but nobody wants to admit
it.

Marley

"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-B21CC8.19124608022005@news.uchicago.edu... In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: In article <steve-A88D32.23274402022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:The FDA is wrecking them. The pipeline is slowing down, and there arefewer drugs coming. As a doc that scares me. How many more unnecessary deaths from drugs like Vioxx does the American public need to suffer? Except that Vioxx saved lives. It virtually wiped out death due to GI bleeding from NSAIDs -- a serious problem. The Cox-2 inhibitors don't have the same risk for bleeding as does aspirin, motrin, etc. My GI colleagues are VERY upset about Vioxx being removed; they're quite certain that they're going to see more bleeding deaths. Too bad the FDA didn't take this into consideration -- if only they'd asked. The FDA, inadaquate as it is at least is some kind of balance to the profit motive. Should the public have no federal agency on their side when drug companies want to push new drugs on the market with inadaquate or fudged testing so as to increase their profit margins? Would it be too much to ask that the FDA be competent?Hokay, friend, a little math: it takes between $400 and 1100 milliondollars, and 7 to 10 years, to get a drug to market -- that amortizesthe inevitable failures and missteps along the way. As a pharma CEO you Pharms are among the most profitable companies in the US. They'll slightly change drug formulae to keep drugs under patent or formulate a one pill a day version ditto. At least four major drug companies spend more per year on advertising than they do on research--why, to keep up that bottom line. There's nothing wrong with making a profit. You want to sell your paper on Wall Street, you'd darned well better make a profit. No profit = no drugs in the pipeline. That simple. Yeah, yeah, get on t.v. advertise to the public, create an artificial demand. I'm sure many docs, physician's assistants and nurse practicioners go slowly nuts from patients demanding this or that drug that they saw advertised on tv. They may not even need the drug, or an older, cheaper generic version might be just as good, but the advertising pushes them to demand the thing they saw on tv. Except you're against all forms of advertising by pharmma -- not to the public, not to the docs, etc, etc.
steve

This month's Scientific American has a short piece on the withdrawal of
Vioxx: "Avoiding Another Vioxx." It discusses shortcomings on all sides,
including the possibility that one of the real issues is whether a drug is
properly aimed at a "blockbuster" number of consumers or to a smaller niche.
In this case, it was suggested that Vioxx is very useful in a segmented
market, i.e., those with a low risk of cardiovascular disease but a history
of gastrointestinal problems. One of those interviewed suggests that the
Vioxx situation may be a turning point in that regard.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000B1189-380E-11E7-B78C83414B7F0000

J.

In article <swhite-B21CC8.19124608022005@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:
Except you're against all forms of advertising by pharmma -- not to thepublic, not to the docs, etc, etc.

That's a bizzare assumption. But tell me, are you GLAD to see a drug
detail rep? Do you like getting all the free pens and the stuffed animal
organs? Most docs I know disappear when these reps show up.

The best way to learn about new drugs would be in the literature, not from
a salesman pushing them.


steve

Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DPdOd.18516$Th1.2398@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message news:swhite-BCAF44.19164108022005@news.uchicago.edu... In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: >> ... This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors, >> precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is >> corporate welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ... > > >It's not supposed to do a lot for seniors. The only way to do "a lot" >for seniors is to break the bank and cough up a couple hundred
billion a >year for comprehensive coverage. For starters, because I guarantee
you >that if Uncle Sugar pays, drug costs will go through the roof (just
as >they did for the dialysis program, the oxygen for emphysema program, >etc, etc, etc). Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. And do you know why? Because (yes, I'll tell you :-) These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- the cost of producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. They won't allow pharma to roll in their R & D costs. Cars would be a lot cheaper if you didn't allow the auto companies to amortize their R & D. Of course, after a while you wouldn't have any cars on the market, and you darned sure wouldn't see any advances in auto technology. The USA is one of the few large markets in which Big Pharma can recoup their R & D costs. So they do, no dummies they. I have a good idea: force the EU to consider R & D costs when set prices (which is what they do when they 'negotiate') for pharma. Their costs would go up, and ours would come down (modestly). Make the EU and other large markets bear their fair share of the burden. steve Why bother with R&D, new drugs, new procedures, etc?

To keep the other foot out as long as possible?

Kathy 1


What's the point. Anybody over 30 has one foot in the grave already, but nobody wants to
admit it.

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-BCAF44.19164108022005@news.uchicago.edu... In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:> ... This Medicare drug plan that does precious little for seniors,> precluded the government negotiating lower prices for drugs is> corporate welfare for Glaxo and Smith Klein and ...It's not supposed to do a lot for seniors. The only way to do "a lot"for seniors is to break the bank and cough up a couple hundred billion
ayear for comprehensive coverage. For starters, because I guarantee youthat if Uncle Sugar pays, drug costs will go through the roof (just asthey did for the dialysis program, the oxygen for emphysema program,etc, etc, etc). Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. And do you know why? Because (yes, I'll tell you :-) These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- the cost of producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. They won't allow pharma to roll in their R & D costs. Cars would be a lot cheaper if you didn't allow the auto companies to amortize their R & D. Of course, after a while you wouldn't have any cars on the market, and you darned sure wouldn't see any advances in auto technology. The USA is one of the few large markets in which Big Pharma can recoup their R & D costs. So they do, no dummies they. I have a good idea: force the EU to consider R & D costs when set prices (which is what they do when they 'negotiate') for pharma. Their costs would go up, and ours would come down (modestly). Make the EU and other large markets bear their fair share of the burden.


ITA. People fail to take this into consideration when comparing health
systems. A certain Canadian poster (who shall remain nameless for fear of
summoning her ;) in particular. With that policy though, Canadians are at a
disadvantage when it comes to obtaining the newer drugs/treatments.

Kathy 1

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-B21CC8.19124608022005@news.uchicago.edu... In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: In article <steve-A88D32.23274402022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:The FDA is wrecking them. The pipeline is slowing down, and there arefewer drugs coming. As a doc that scares me. How many more unnecessary deaths from drugs like Vioxx does the American public need to suffer? Except that Vioxx saved lives. It virtually wiped out death due to GI bleeding from NSAIDs -- a serious problem. The Cox-2 inhibitors don't have the same risk for bleeding as does aspirin, motrin, etc. My GI colleagues are VERY upset about Vioxx being removed; they're quite certain that they're going to see more bleeding deaths. Too bad the FDA didn't take this into consideration -- if only they'd asked. The FDA, inadaquate as it is at least is some kind of balance to the profit motive. Should the public have no federal agency on their side when drug companies want to push new drugs on the market with inadaquate or fudged testing so as to increase their profit margins? Would it be too much to ask that the FDA be competent?Hokay, friend, a little math: it takes between $400 and 1100 milliondollars, and 7 to 10 years, to get a drug to market -- that amortizesthe inevitable failures and missteps along the way. As a pharma CEO you Pharms are among the most profitable companies in the US. They'll slightly change drug formulae to keep drugs under patent or formulate a one pill a day version ditto. At least four major drug companies spend more per year on advertising than they do on research--why, to keep up that bottom line. There's nothing wrong with making a profit. You want to sell your paper on Wall Street, you'd darned well better make a profit. No profit = no drugs in the pipeline. That simple.



There is a difference between profit and obscene profit. It is hard to
justify (even considering R & D costs) when a single dose of a chemo drug
such as Oxaiplaitin (sp?) can cost close to $8,000 (without negotiated
rates) and the dose is generally a weekly one.

Kathy 1

In article <36uk29F56vvtaU1@individual.net>,
"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:

There is a difference between profit and obscene profit. It is hard to justify (even considering R & D costs) when a single dose of a chemo drug such as Oxaiplaitin (sp?) can cost close to $8,000 (without negotiated rates) and the dose is generally a weekly one.


How many hundreds of millions did they spend to create the drug and get
it approved by the FDA?

What did it cost the drug company to finance that over how many years?

How many people will take it, and for how long?

Once you know the answers to those questions, you can figure out whether
the profit is "obscene" or not.





steve

In article <cud1mu$kvn@marlowe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
In article <swhite-B21CC8.19124608022005@news.uchicago.edu>, Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:Except you're against all forms of advertising by pharmma -- not to thepublic, not to the docs, etc, etc. That's a bizzare assumption. But tell me, are you GLAD to see a drug detail rep?


They're people. It's like asking me if I'm glad to see a dentist.

Do you like getting all the free pens and the stuffed animal organs? Most docs I know disappear when these reps show up.


Some do, some don't. I don't much care either way. I'm forever losing
pens, though, so the pens come in handy.

The best way to learn about new drugs would be in the literature, not from a salesman pushing them.


Oh no doubt, and I generally don't take what a drug rep says seriously,
just as I don't take seriously what a car salesman has to say.





steve

In article <36tab2F576r49U1@individual.net>, "J." <jmdjmh@aol.com>
wrote:

This month's Scientific American has a short piece on the withdrawal of Vioxx: "Avoiding Another Vioxx." It discusses shortcomings on all sides, including the possibility that one of the real issues is whether a drug is properly aimed at a "blockbuster" number of consumers or to a smaller niche. In this case, it was suggested that Vioxx is very useful in a segmented market, i.e., those with a low risk of cardiovascular disease but a history of gastrointestinal problems. One of those interviewed suggests that the Vioxx situation may be a turning point in that regard. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000B1189-380E- 11E7-B78C83414B7F0000


I saw that, thanks for the reminder. It's a very good point and one that
good docs understand. You could easily argue (and I wouldn't disagree)
that Vioxx was over-used, or used without a proper understanding of its
risks. But pulling it from the market was a stupid thing to do, and the
FDA should be hammered for that.




steve

In article <swhite-BCAF44.19164108022005@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.And do you know why?Because (yes, I'll tell you :-)These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- the costof producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. They won'tallow pharma to roll in their R & D costs.


Every country in the EU and Japan negotiates reasonable drug prices from
the greedheads of big pharma. HMOs and insurance plans in the US
negotiate lower prices. So, who is left to pay full freight? The ones
who can least afford it, those without insurance, the poor and the working
poor and the elderly.

Big pharma's advertising costs are skyrocketing--up 22% in 2003 according
to Standard and Poors. That 3.3 billion could be better spent cutting
drug prices for the poor.

Again according to S&P, drug costs have risen 12.4% annually more than 4
times the rate of inflation. Other health care costs are rising at a rate
of 7% every year.

Even Standard and Poor's hardly a bunch of wild eyed leftists called drug
company prices "excessive." (S &P Industry Surveys Oct. 2004 vol 2.)

The greedheads won't make flu vaccine for Americans because it might
effect their excessive profits.

Big pharm claims that these high prices are necessary to cover R and D
costs. The truth is that in 2002 the top 10 US drug companies had a
median profit margin of 17%. The median profit rate for other Fortune 500
industries is 3%

The major companies spend less on R &D than they keep in profits and far
less than they spend on marketing.

Big pharm claims they bring out a steady stream of lifesaving drugs.
Baloney. Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 were new
chemical compounds and only 7 of the 17 were classified by the FDA as
improvements over drugs on the market. The remaining 10 were fiddle
faddle--change an unimportant ingreedient to hang onto the patent type
stuff.

The innovative drugs usually come from research at government or
university labs, not from Big Pharm.

As for doctor education and the stuffed spinal cords (I have seen one with
my own eyes; it was part of the commplete set along with stuffed kidneys,
lungs, all with anthropomorphized faces. Gag me) let alone the trips to
exotic locales for docs for "educational programming" to convince
practicioners that the new expensive drug is so much better than the old
one.

If physicians took responsibility for their own continuing ed and relied
on double blind studies rather than industry sales pitches they might well
perscribe more effective drugs.


And don't give me the "we're so busy" rap. No one sponsors my continuing
education.

17% profit rate and people suffer because they can't afford the damn
drugs. I don't have proof but I can imagine some people are dying because
of corporate greed.


Linda

Linda Fortney <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:cudavo$n1g@marple.umd.edu... In article <swhite-BCAF44.19164108022005@news.uchicago.edu>, Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:In article <cu90nh$jq2@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: Canada, the UK, France and every other western industrialized country negotiates lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.And do you know why?Because (yes, I'll tell you :-)These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- the costof producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. They won'tallow pharma to roll in their R & D costs. Every country in the EU and Japan negotiates reasonable drug prices from the greedheads of big pharma. HMOs and insurance plans in the US negotiate lower prices. So, who is left to pay full freight? The ones who can least afford it, those without insurance, the poor and the working poor and the elderly. Big pharma's advertising costs are skyrocketing--up 22% in 2003 according to Standard and Poors. That 3.3 billion could be better spent cutting drug prices for the poor. Again according to S&P, drug costs have risen 12.4% annually more than 4 times the rate of inflation. Other health care costs are rising at a rate of 7% every year. Even Standard and Poor's hardly a bunch of wild eyed leftists called drug company prices "excessive." (S &P Industry Surveys Oct. 2004 vol 2.) The greedheads won't make flu vaccine for Americans because it might effect their excessive profits. Big pharm claims that these high prices are necessary to cover R and D costs. The truth is that in 2002 the top 10 US drug companies had a median profit margin of 17%. The median profit rate for other Fortune 500 industries is 3% The major companies spend less on R &D than they keep in profits and far less than they spend on marketing. Big pharm claims they bring out a steady stream of lifesaving drugs. Baloney. Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 were new chemical compounds and only 7 of the 17 were classified by the FDA as improvements over drugs on the market. The remaining 10 were fiddle faddle--change an unimportant ingreedient to hang onto the patent type stuff. The innovative drugs usually come from research at government or university labs, not from Big Pharm. As for doctor education and the stuffed spinal cords (I have seen one with my own eyes; it was part of the commplete set along with stuffed kidneys, lungs, all with anthropomorphized faces. Gag me) let alone the trips to exotic locales for docs for "educational programming" to convince practicioners that the new expensive drug is so much better than the old one. If physicians took responsibility for their own continuing ed and relied on double blind studies rather than industry sales pitches they might well perscribe more effective drugs. And don't give me the "we're so busy" rap. No one sponsors my continuing education. 17% profit rate and people suffer because they can't afford the damn drugs. I don't have proof but I can imagine some people are dying because of corporate greed.

They definitely are. One young man's (early 40's - in the colon cancer bb I
belong to) insurance company would not cover the exorbitant price of the
newer colon cancer chemo drugs and he could not afford them. He died a year
ago this month, leaving behind a wife and 7 year old daughter. I could go
on - I've heard way to many horror stories. Excellent post btw.

Kathy 1

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-A815C0.09301809022005@news.uchicago.edu... In article <36uk29F56vvtaU1@individual.net>, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: There is a difference between profit and obscene profit. It is hard to justify (even considering R & D costs) when a single dose of a chemo drug such as Oxaiplaitin (sp?) can cost close to $8,000 (without negotiated rates) and the dose is generally a weekly one. How many hundreds of millions did they spend to create the drug and get it approved by the FDA? What did it cost the drug company to finance that over how many years? How many people will take it, and for how long? Once you know the answers to those questions, you can figure out whether the profit is "obscene" or not.


It's an obscene cost - there is just no way to justify it despite the
answers to the above questions. It is out of the reach of those without
insurance, poor insurance, and even those with Medicare who can't afford the
co-pay. Linda is right, people are dying because of corporate greed.

Kathy 1

In article <cudavo$n1g@marple.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

These countries force pharma to sell at their marginal cost -- thecost of producing the 10,000,001st pill on the production line. Theywon't allow pharma to roll in their R & D costs. Every country in the EU and Japan negotiates reasonable drug prices from the greedheads of big pharma.


By putting a gun to their heads. I understand how that appeals to
liberals, of course. Again, they force pharma to sell drugs at their
marginal cost. That's why drugs in Canada cost less than the same drugs
in the U.S. -- Canada DOESN'T ALLOW R & D to be considered.

Again according to S&P, drug costs have risen 12.4% annually more than 4 times the rate of inflation. Other health care costs are rising at a rate of 7% every year.


We docs like to get paid. So do nurses, etc.

Pharma costs money. You want new life-saving drugs? Pay up.

Even Standard and Poor's hardly a bunch of wild eyed leftists called drug company prices "excessive." (S &P Industry Surveys Oct. 2004 vol 2.)


S&P should know better. It's a market economy.

The greedheads won't make flu vaccine for Americans because it might effect their excessive profits.


Fear of lawsuits is the problem, Linda, our good friends the lawyers
have gutted the vaccine business. And that flu vaccine shortage this
year was caused, in part, by the FDA decertifying a British company that
was providing vaccine.

Big pharm claims that these high prices are necessary to cover R and D costs. The truth is that in 2002 the top 10 US drug companies had a median profit margin of 17%. The median profit rate for other Fortune 500 industries is 3%


Again, you have to offer a good return on investment if you're going to
sell 10 year notes to cover your R & D. This isn't a mystery or an evil
cabal. People will NOT invest in a company that engages in a risky
endeavor (developing new drugs) unless the return is there.

Big pharm claims they bring out a steady stream of lifesaving drugs. Baloney. Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 were new chemical compounds and only 7 of the 17 were classified by the FDA as improvements over drugs on the market.


Yep, the pipeline is drying up, PRECISELY BECAUSE of the things you
advocate.

An example is AIDS. There are few drugs in the pipeline today compared
to five years ago. Why? Because a few years back you left-liberal folks
started talking about busting patents. African and Asian nations picked
up on that and started threatening pharma companies. And the pharma
companies said to themselves, "why the hell should we invest a billion
dollars into new AIDS drugs if they're going to be taken away from us
before we get our money back?

Result: no new drugs.

As a doc who treats patients with AIDS, this really angers me.


The remaining 10 were fiddle faddle--change an unimportant ingreedient to hang onto the patent type stuff. The innovative drugs usually come from research at government or university labs, not from Big Pharm.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Universities do NOT develop drugs -- we are
spectacularly unsuited to doing the grunt work of testing a thousand
compounds, all very similar, to figure out which one is best. That is
something Pharma does MUCH better. We do basic research and then do the
applied research that spins off that. That's what NIH and universities
do best. What Pharma does best is take these good ideas and develop
drugs that work. It's a grunt business, patient, slow, methodical, that
requires a lot of money and time.

At my institution, to my knowledge there is not a single faculty person
involved in direct drug research. We help test promising drugs in
clinical trials, we do basic research that looks at new pathways and
ideas, but we do NOT do drug development.

If physicians took responsibility for their own continuing ed and relied on double blind studies rather than industry sales pitches they might well perscribe more effective drugs.


That's a different argument.

I don't have proof but I can imagine some people are dying because of corporate greed.


I do have proof, and I make clear that big Pharma is saving countless
lives every day.





steve

In article <swhite-58D776.09543710022005@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote: Again according to S&P, drug costs have risen 12.4% annually more than 4 times the rate of inflation. Other health care costs are rising at a rate of 7% every year.We docs like to get paid. So do nurses, etc.


My, my, talk about ignoring the obvious. To point it out, drug prices are
rising at a much greater rate than other health care costs.
Even Standard and Poor's hardly a bunch of wild eyed leftists called drug company prices "excessive." (S &P Industry Surveys Oct. 2004 vol 2.)S&P should know better. It's a market economy.

But capitalism only works if the captains of industry decide NOT to act
like pirates. Greedy Big Pharm should raise the Jolly Roger over
corporate headquarters. It's not a market economy, zShrub gave Big Pharm
a huge chunk of corporate welfare with the Medicare drug bill.

I notice that you chose to ignore the fact that your claim that government
involvement in pricing would cause prices to skyrocket when I pointed out
that the VA negotiates drug prices and it seems to work just fine. You
also chose to ignore that I pointed out the fact that HMOs, insurance
companies and every country in the industrialized world negotiates prices
and the only people paying full freight are those who can least afford it,
the poor, the working poor and the uninsured.
The greedheads won't make flu vaccine for Americans because it might effect their excessive profits.Fear of lawsuits is the problem, Linda, our good friends the lawyershave gutted the vaccine business. And that flu vaccine shortage thisyear was caused, in part, by the FDA decertifying a British company thatwas providing vaccine.


Not according to my sources. The formula has to be changed every year,
the process of making the vaccine is time consuming and expensive, and
there isn't much profit in it. Therefore big Pharm declines to perform a
basic public health service. Who cares if some old people or babies die
of an easily preventable disease?
Our first loyalty is not to human
decency but to the bottom line.


The evil FDA decertified the company only after the British authorities
found major problems with the factory. I don't like the notion of a
contaminated vaccine killing people for a variety of reasons, not least
among them that such would give the anti-vaccination nuts more ammunition.

Big pharm claims that these high prices are necessary to cover R and D costs. The truth is that in 2002 the top 10 US drug companies had a median profit margin of 17%. The median profit rate for other Fortune 500 industries is 3%Again, you have to offer a good return on investment if you're going tosell 10 year notes to cover your R & D. This isn't a mystery or an evilcabal. People will NOT invest in a company that engages in a riskyendeavor (developing new drugs) unless the return is there.

You actually justify a 17% profit margin when other large companies are
content with 3%? That might seem just and reasonable to you, but it
certainly does not to me.
Yep, the pipeline is drying up, PRECISELY BECAUSE of the things youadvocate.An example is AIDS. There are few drugs in the pipeline today comparedto five years ago. Why? Because a few years back you left-liberal folksstarted talking about busting patents. African and Asian nations pickedup on that and started threatening pharma companies. And the pharmacompanies said to themselves, "why the hell should we invest a billiondollars into new AIDS drugs if they're going to be taken away from usbefore we get our money back?Result: no new drugs.


Result of big Pharma not giving poor companies a reasonably priced Aids
drug, dead people, orphaned children and more dead children. I applaud
anyone who reverse engineers an AIDS drug and sells it to third world
countries at cost. Marcuse said that we should work to make this a world
where there are fewer murdered children. And, when children are murdered
by corporate greed, so the rich can get even richer, anyone would be
appalled.

17% profit rate when other companies are content with 3%. And people
suffer and die.

I bring this up again, because you have ignored it as well. Burroughs
Wellcome did just fine for decades as a not for profit. The profits they
made were given to a foundation that did a great deal of good.

As a doc who treats patients with AIDS, this really angers me.


But corporate greed that denies drugs to people whose income is less than
a dollar a day does not?

do best. What Pharma does best is take these good ideas and developdrugs that work. It's a grunt business, patient, slow, methodical, thatrequires a lot of money and time.

Aww, poor widdle Glaxo. 12 % profit rate rather than 13% It makes me
want to weep.
If physicians took responsibility for their own continuing ed and relied on double blind studies rather than industry sales pitches they might well perscribe more effective drugs.That's a different argument.

It's all tied together. In the quest for more and more and more and more
profit, big Pharm designs their advertising program to health
practicioners, not to mention the seminars in the Bahamas. Less money
spent on this kind of crap would mean that drug prices could be lowered.
Consulting real scholarship instead of sales pitches from detail reps by
docs would mean that patients got better care. With electronic
information being so readily available to the desktop, there isn't even
the excuse that a doc doesn't have time to go to the library.


I also notice you chose to ignore the effect of tv advertising of drugs on
patients. Doesn't it drive practicioners nuts to have to tell people
patiently over and over again that XYZ that the patient saw on TV is not
right for them?


I don't have proof but I can imagine some people are dying because of corporate greed.I do have proof, and I make clear that big Pharma is saving countlesslives every day.

And Kathy said a friend of hers died because he couldn't afford a drug his
insurance company wouldn't pay for. And thousands in the third world have
died of AIDS because big Pharm is so damn greedy.


Linda

In article <cug6lk$6vv@wolfe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

Again according to S&P, drug costs have risen 12.4% annually more than 4 times the rate of inflation. Other health care costs are rising at a rate of 7% every year.We docs like to get paid. So do nurses, etc. My, my, talk about ignoring the obvious. To point it out, drug prices are rising at a much greater rate than other health care costs.


Yes, for now they are. I'm not ignoring it, it is what it is. Do I
"like" it? Not really, but I'm quite chary of the "cure" you propose --
you might kill the patient.

I notice that you chose to ignore the fact that your claim that government involvement in pricing would cause prices to skyrocket when I pointed out that the VA negotiates drug prices and it seems to work just fine.


Um, you distorted my argument. I said that government involvement (e.g.,
the EU, or the VA in your example) can get a better price for
THEMSELVES, but everyone else left in the market pays for it.

The VA, using the power of government, hammers Pharma to the marginal
cost and not the overall cost of developing and marketing a drug.
Further (see below), the VA is a volume purchaser, and gets a better
price than you do at the retail corner pharmacy. This is not unusual in
the business / retail world. But to the extent that government goes
beyond the usual discount for volume buying and demands an extra-good
price, just for the privilege of letting a pharma company exist and do
business, it distorts the market -- the pharma company has to get its
return on investment elsewhere, or go out of business.

You also chose to ignore that I pointed out the fact that HMOs, insurance companies and every country in the industrialized world negotiates prices and the only people paying full freight are those who can least afford it, the poor, the working poor and the uninsured.


Again, you fail to acknowledge the reason for this: a big insurance
company has purchasing clout.

If you buy a loaf of bread at the corner market, you pay more (per loaf)
than if you trundle down to Sams Club and buy a gross of loaves of
bread. This has been retailing for a long time. An insurance company
delivers x thousand of prescriptions per month, and the Pharma company
says, okay, for that volume, we'll give you a better price.

Fear of lawsuits is the problem, Linda, our good friends the lawyershave gutted the vaccine business. And that flu vaccine shortage thisyear was caused, in part, by the FDA decertifying a British companythat was providing vaccine. Not according to my sources. The formula has to be changed every year, the process of making the vaccine is time consuming and expensive, and there isn't much profit in it. Therefore big Pharm declines to perform a basic public health service.


I think you gut your own argument: yes, the vaccine has to change every
year and that costs R & D money. Yes, vaccine production is expensive.
And yes, government acts as a monopsony (the US government certainly
does, as it buys 100% of the vaccine needed in the USA and resells it to
the docs and hospitals), and that caps the potential profit.

Now throw on top of that new, unexpected costs -- escalating and
unpredictable tort costs, for example -- and it's easy to see what big
Pharma would decline to bend over and take one for the public.

The evil FDA decertified the company only after the British authorities found major problems with the factory. I don't like the notion of a contaminated vaccine killing people for a variety of reasons, not least among them that such would give the anti-vaccination nuts more ammunition.


Oh, no problem there, I don't like giving contaminated vaccine to
patients. But if you remove 40% of the usual supply of vaccine, guess
what happens in a market, supply-and-demand economy?

C'mon, my friend, be honest -- you're a socialist at heart. Nuttin'
wrong with that as long as one doesn't wig out, but you simply don't
trust markets.

Again, you have to offer a good return on investment if you're goingto sell 10 year notes to cover your R & D. This isn't a mystery oran evil cabal. People will NOT invest in a company that engages in arisky endeavor (developing new drugs) unless the return is there. You actually justify a 17% profit margin when other large companies are content with 3%? That might seem just and reasonable to you, but it certainly does not to me.


First, in a market economy, what's "reasonable" to you and me isn't an
issue. It's what they get. Second, remember their time line is longer,
and the risk to investors is higher. You can invest $300 million in a
new drug only to have the FDA decide (correctly and for good, medical
reasons) right at the very end not to issue a new drug license.

Poof -- your $300 million is gone.

Damned right that Pharma has to offer a better than average return to
get investors to pony up that $300 mil.

If you own a company that makes (for example) shoes, and your investment
risk is that you might turn out a line of shoes that no one wants to
buy, that risk is reflected in the profit you need to generate to
attract investors. That risk is some lower than for Pharma -- in a short
period of time you can retool your factory and make shoes that people
will buy. Pharma can't do that -- if they invest in a new line of drug
that turns out to be a complete bust, it takes years to get another
product to market.

It's simple: time = money. The longer your time line, the higher your
rate of return has to be to be attractive in a market economy.

An example is AIDS. There are few drugs in the pipeline todaycompared to five years ago. Why? Because a few years back youleft-liberal folks started talking about busting patents. Africanand Asian nations picked up on that and started threatening pharmacompanies. And the pharma companies said to themselves, "why thehell should we invest a billion dollars into new AIDS drugs ifthey're going to be taken away from us before we get our money back?Result: no new drugs. Result of big Pharma not giving poor companies a reasonably priced Aids drug, dead people, orphaned children and more dead children. I applaud anyone who reverse engineers an AIDS drug and sells it to third world countries at cost.


Well okay, but kiss goodbye any new AIDS drugs. If you allow reverse
engineering and sale at prices that cause the original Pharma developer
to lose their investment, why in the world would they put another
several hundred million dollars into a new AIDS drug?

Result -- in ten years you'll have made no progress on AIDS, and people
will continue to die. We'll make no progress on eliminating a horrible
disease. As a physician, that is NOT acceptable.

Burroughs Wellcome did just fine for decades as a not for profit. The profits they made were given to a foundation that did a great deal of good.


That was one company in a unique circumstance in a by-gone era.

I also notice you chose to ignore the effect of tv advertising of drugs on patients. Doesn't it drive practicioners nuts to have to tell people patiently over and over again that XYZ that the patient saw on TV is not right for them?


Again, a different argument.





steve

Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-58D776.09543710022005@news.uchicago.edu...

<snip>
Pharma costs money. You want new life-saving drugs? Pay up.


New life-saving drugs aren't worth much if you can't afford them.



<snip>


Linda I don't have proof but I can imagine some people are dying because of corporate greed.
Steve I do have proof, and I make clear that big Pharma is saving countless lives every day.


Only those that can afford the meds.

Kathy 1

In article <swhite-7E0D92.17491910022005@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:In article <cug6lk$6vv@wolfe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:Um, you distorted my argument. I said that government involvement (e.g.,the EU, or the VA in your example) can get a better price forTHEMSELVES, but everyone else left in the market pays for it.

Gee, if the AMerican citizen, the only one left paying full freight
actually had their government on their side, negotiating decent prices
from these bandits, perhaps the greedheads would lower their prices to a
reasonable level and forgo their excessive profits.I think you gut your own argument: yes, the vaccine has to change everyyear and that costs R & D money. Yes, vaccine production is expensive.And yes, government acts as a monopsony (the US government certainlydoes, as it buys 100% of the vaccine needed in the USA and resells it tothe docs and hospitals), and that caps the potential profit.

I guess the difference between you and me is that I think corporations are
supposed to be good citizens and care about something other than just the
bottom line.
C'mon, my friend, be honest -- you're a socialist at heart. Nuttin'wrong with that as long as one doesn't wig out, but you simply don'ttrust markets.

Another difference between you and me. No, I don't think the market is
the answer to all problems. I find the faith of some conservatives that
the
market will solve all problems if only left unfettered to be extremely
touching. The market might be able to solve some problems if it was
honest, but it ain't.


The fact is though, we're not talking about a free market. As
Rupa pointed out (thanks Rupa) big Pharm is an oligarchy. Where is TR the
Trust Buster when we really need him. And as I
pointed out, they receive huge amounts of corporate welfare.
You actually justify a 17% profit margin when other large companies are content with 3%? That might seem just and reasonable to you, but it certainly does not to me.First, in a market economy, what's "reasonable" to you and me isn't anissue. It's what they get.


As Rupa pointed out it is an oligarchy with precious little competition.
Damned right that Pharma has to offer a better than average return toget investors to pony up that $300 mil.

17% profit rate, and people die because they can't afford drugs. That is
not obscene it is criminal.
Well okay, but kiss goodbye any new AIDS drugs. If you allow reverseengineering and sale at prices that cause the original Pharma developerto lose their investment, why in the world would they put anotherseveral hundred million dollars into a new AIDS drug? Burroughs Wellcome did just fine for decades as a not for profit. The profits they made were given to a foundation that did a great deal of good.That was one company in a unique circumstance in a by-gone era.


Sez you.


You keep on ignoring the advertising costs which are boosting drug
prices. They advertise for the same reason any other company
advertises--to increase sales. And their advertising costs exceed their R
and D costs.

In article <cuj1d5$v59@wolfe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

I guess the difference between you and me is that I think corporations are supposed to be good citizens and care about something other than just the bottom line.


Everyone is supposed to be a good citizen. The issue is how you DEFINE
what a good citizen is. Giving away one's money and product seems a bit
extreme to me, especially when the government makes you do it.

The English word for that is "extortion", as I recall. And too much
extortion causes companies to quit markets. Then we all suffer.

C'mon, my friend, be honest -- you're a socialist at heart. Nuttin'wrong with that as long as one doesn't wig out, but you simply don'ttrust markets. Another difference between you and me. No, I don't think the market is the answer to all problems. I find the faith of some conservatives that the market will solve all problems if only left unfettered to be extremely touching. The market might be able to solve some problems if it was honest, but it ain't.


Given a choice between markets and government mandates, I'll take
markets just about every time.

The fact is though, we're not talking about a free market. As Rupa pointed out (thanks Rupa) big Pharm is an oligarchy. Where is TR the Trust Buster when we really need him. And as I pointed out, they receive huge amounts of corporate welfare.


"Corporate welfare" is a charged left-liberal term, and it's also a a
different argument.

First, in a market economy, what's "reasonable" to you and me isn't anissue. It's what they get. As Rupa pointed out it is an oligarchy with precious little competition.


One of the reasons for a lack of competition is that the entry cost is
high. Remember, it's a half-billion dollars to develop a new drug. That
kind of money isn't easy to find. That's one reason why Pharma is
consolidating, to make raising that kind of money easier.

Damned right that Pharma has to offer a better than average returnto get investors to pony up that $300 mil. 17% profit rate, and people die because they can't afford drugs. That is not obscene it is criminal.


No, it's life. A "17% profit" reflects the uncertain nature of drug
development, the very long period of time required to get a product to
market and get one's investment back, and the difficult nature of the
market. It is what it is. Do away with these profits and you won't have
any new drugs.

Again, the threat of government intervention and patent-busting is
already scaring off new drug development. You need to acknowledge that.

Burroughs Wellcome did just fine for decades as a not for profit. The profits they made were given to a foundation that did a great deal of good.That was one company in a unique circumstance in a by-gone era. Sez you.


So why didn't they keep going?

You keep on ignoring the advertising costs which are boosting drug prices. They advertise for the same reason any other company advertises--to increase sales. And their advertising costs exceed their R and D costs.


There is nothing wrong with advertising, and nothing wrong with
increasing sales -- increased sales mean that they can recoup their
investment and (in a free market) bring their prices down.

You seem to be fixated on this and you shouldn't be. Advertising is one
cost, R & D is another. You do whatever you need in each to get the job
done. Should we demand that the media charge less so that the
advertising costs go down? Demand that Pharma advertise less, thus
abridgiing their first amendment rights? Again, everything you propose
as a cure seems to be worse than the disease itself.

If you want more R & D, you have to have conditions such that the
companies will want to do it -- that is, they see a reason, in cold hard
cash at the end of the trail. Otherwise they'll put their money into a
surer investment, and advertising is one of those -- those ad dollars
generate sales and make money, and that's the name of the game.




steve

In article <swhite-F70021.14114911022005@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote:The English word for that is "extortion", as I recall. And too muchextortion causes companies to quit markets. Then we all suffer.

The English word for the way Big Pharm behaves is rampant greed. You
don't think a 17% profit rate is too high. I do.
Given a choice between markets and government mandates, I'll takemarkets just about every time.


But this isn't a true market. As Rupa pointed out it is an oligopoly. As
I pointed out, they receive corporate welfare in tremendous amounts. And
finally, the patents create a monopoly. The sacred, all powerful, we must
worship it market does not control prices in a monopoly situation.
"Corporate welfare" is a charged left-liberal term, and it's also a adifferent argument.


Anything you don't want to defend becomes a "different argument." The
notion that Medicare would not negotiate prices was a result of Big Pharm
lobbying, and a give away of tax money to obscenely rich corporations.
It also means that the all sacred, all powerful market is not operating
freely.

What shall we do Steve? Retun to the glory days of the Gilded Age?

Come back, Teddy Roosevelt, we have more trusts that need to be busted.

Linda

In article <cuo6c2$2av@wolfe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

But this isn't a true market. As Rupa pointed out it is an oligopoly.


There are about a dozen large Pharma companies and several dozen smaller
companies that are successfully putting product into the marketplace.
What part of that is the oligopoly?

It's a market that is hampered to some degree by the high entry cost. A
small Pharma company still needs to sell a couple hundred million
dollars of paper to have the cash needed to develop a new drug.

That's unavoidable. Research costs money, and developing a successful
drug costs a lot of money. Marketing that drug costs money.

This is just another rendition of the old left-liberal demonizing
against "Big Oil", "Big Steel", etc. Of course they're big, they're
global businesses.

As I pointed out, they receive corporate welfare in tremendous amounts. And finally, the patents create a monopoly. The sacred, all powerful, we must worship it market does not control prices in a monopoly situation.


I have no quarrel with ending any number of corporate tax breaks.
Successful industries don't need them.

See my comments about patents in my other response to you. Of course
patents create a =temporary= monopoly. That's expressly the point of a
patent.

"Corporate welfare" is a charged left-liberal term, and it's also a adifferent argument. Anything you don't want to defend becomes a "different argument."


Um, no, it's simply a different argument. I suppose we could argue about
it if you want.




steve