Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thank God This is Being Approved

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thank God This is Being Approved

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (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

  • #2
    Thank God This is Being Approved

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Steve White <[email protected]> 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

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank God This is Being Approved

      In article <[email protected]>,
      [email protected] (Linda Fortney) wrote:
      In article <[email protected]>, Steve White <[email protected]> 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. ****ed 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

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank God This is Being Approved

        In article <[email protected]>,
        Steve White <[email protected]> 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. ****ed 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 **** 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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank God This is Being Approved

          In article <[email protected]>,
          [email protected] (Linda Fortney) wrote:
          In article <[email protected]>, Steve White <[email protected]> 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

          Comment


          • #6
            Thank God This is Being Approved

            In article <[email protected]>,
            [email protected] (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

            Comment


            • #7
              Thank God This is Being Approved


              "Steve White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]
              In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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 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


              Comment


              • #8
                Thank God This is Being Approved


                "Steve White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Linda Fortney) wrote:
                In article <[email protected]>, Steve White <[email protected]> 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?cha...8C83414B7F0000

                J.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank God This is Being Approved

                  In article <[email protected]>,
                  Steve White <[email protected]> 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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thank God This is Being Approved


                    Marley Greiner <[email protected]> wrote in message
                    news[email protected]
                    "Steve White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
                    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thank God This is Being Approved


                      Steve White <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:[email protected]
                      In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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 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




                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thank God This is Being Approved


                        Steve White <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected]
                        In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Linda Fortney) wrote:
                        In article <[email protected]>, Steve White <[email protected]> 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



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thank God This is Being Approved

                          In article <[email protected]>,
                          "kat" <[email protected]> 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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thank God This is Being Approved

                            In article <[email protected]>,
                            [email protected] (Linda Fortney) wrote:
                            In article <[email protected]>, Steve White <[email protected]> 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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thank God This is Being Approved

                              In article <[email protected]>, "J." <[email protected]>
                              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?cha...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

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X