Pharmaceuticals

[magichat]

A post in another thread got me thinking.

Would it be possible to pass a law in Congress requiring that Pharmaceutical companies export their drugs to other countries without decreasing the price?

Probably unconstitutional as all get out but it would keep the US from subsidizing drugs costs to countless other countries.

[ChiTownVenture]

I would imagine that since large pharmaceutical companies are multinational they would sell their pharmaceuticals from UK, France, or China. The US would then pay even more because it would have to be imported.

The US takes the top 2 spots in ranking of pharmaceutical companies, the next five are in Europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies

[magichat]

Excellent point that I apparently missed. So what do we do when other countries use the US to subsidize ther drug costs?

[ChiTownVenture]

Cap the cost of pharmaceuticals, pick a percentage over the cost to manufacture and do not allow the drug to be sold for more in the US. This formula can take into account R&D costs and the percent can decrease as time goes on.

Just an idea, otherwise I'm not really sure that there is anything that can be done.

[magichat]

Do you have any fear that this will reduce R&D. If we follow other country's methods then there will be a reduction in incoming funds to the Pharmaceutical companies, cuts will need to be made somewhere.

[traelin0]

Price controls never work. Good luck.

[ChiTownVenture]

France, UK & Switzerland round out the top 5. How are they able to pull a profit and handle R&D when their countries have socialized medical care.

[jkapp]

Dec 28, 2010 17:08:20 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

Cap the cost of pharmaceuticals, pick a percentage over the cost to manufacture and do not allow the drug to be sold for more in the US. This formula can take into account R&D costs and the percent can decrease as time goes on.

Just an idea, otherwise I'm not really sure that there is anything that can be done.

A decent plan, but unfortunately companies use cost/price/output structures to maximize profits. So if they find that they do not achieve much more profit at a certain output level at the set upon price, then they will stop production at that output point. This could mean that certain pharmaceuticals will have shortages, or be cut out of production altogether.

[traelin0]

They can't afford them, lest we forget the Eurozone is on the verge of collapse. And heck, the member states can't even print their own currency like we can, which would at least buy them some time, but at the cost of eventual cost-push inflation.

Price controls unnaturally cause the "empty store shelf" syndrome. Ask Boomers about those good old gas lines and Russians about grain price controls in the USSR. The problems with our healthcare system are pharmaceutical special interests. They don't like real competition.

[magichat]

Dec 28, 2010 17:16:58 GMT -5 @traelin0 said:

Price controls never work. Good luck.

They seem to be working just fine for a bunch of other countries. Why do you think Canadian drugs are so cheap. We are left footing the bill, so how do we stop that?

[traelin0]

Dec 28, 2010 17:24:04 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Dec 28, 2010 17:16:58 GMT -5 @traelin0 said:

Price controls never work. Good luck.

They seem to be working just fine for a bunch of other countries. Why do you think Canadian drugs are so cheap. We are left footing the bill, so how do we stop that?

The entire Western world is on the verge of collapse due to a combination of "social democracy" (welfare) and "soft fascism" (central banking). Canada will be no exception, they're just the prettiest ugly duckling.

[ChiTownVenture]

They can't afford them

The companies in those countries top the list of Forbes 500, they are making money, and recovering their R&D costs.

[traelin0]

Dec 28, 2010 17:26:06 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

They can't afford them

The companies in those countries top the list of Forbes 500, they are making money, and recovering their R&D costs.

Of course they're making money. They own the FDA.

[magichat]

So we wait for the collapse, I don't usually choose to do something boring and painful at the same time.

[traelin0]

Dec 28, 2010 17:26:58 GMT -5 @magichat said:

So we wait for the collapse, I don't usually choose to do something boring and painful at the same time.

That's why sanityjones and I are going to vote for the most profligate politicians. It's better to get this over with than extend and pretend. Give everyone what they want, "cheap" drugs, unending wars, false SS promises, Medicare Part Z. Let's just hurry up and do it.

[sanityjones]

Dec 28, 2010 17:28:17 GMT -5 @traelin0 said:

Dec 28, 2010 17:26:58 GMT -5 @magichat said:

So we wait for the collapse, I don't usually choose to do something boring and painful at the same time.

That's why sanityjones and I are going to vote for the most profligate politicians. It's better to get this over with than extend and pretend. Give everyone what they want, "cheap" drugs, unending wars, false SS promises, Medicare Part Z. Let's just hurry up and do it.

Absolutely! I want.......DEMAND government subsidized EVERYTHING. Free, FREE, FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

[billisonboard]

Dang, I thought this was going to be a poll, pro or con on pharmaceuticals. I come here and find out it is about drug companies.

[stats45]

The real scam with pharmaceuticals is how government subisidies prop up prices (e.g. Medicare Part D) and how unusual the drug approval process 'works'.

When new drugs are approved, they just have to be more effective that a placebo, not whatever drugs are already available to treat the disorder/disease/afflication. Because of this, only a very small percentage of drugs actually add anything to the existing pool of medications that increase health outcomes for large number of people. Add in the large numbers of people killed directly or indirectly by prescription mistakes or allergies, and the value becomes even more questionable.

Some prescription drugs are absolutely incredible, unfortunately this is only true for a relatively small amount of drugs and like everything else in our economy (education, health care, food) government intervention into markets increases demand without the appropriate market mechanisms that would protect against overuse.

[verrip1]

Great. We've got people who support price controls.

Just goes to prove the failure of the public school system. As if we needed MORE proof.

[Shirina]

People need to do some research on Jonas Sauk. He seems to be the only one who invented a cure for a disease because he actually felt it needed to be cured, not to make money. In fact, he gave the cure to polio to the world, saying that he was content with his salary as a research professor and doctor. He could've gotten filthy rich with his polio cure, but decided that the welfare of mankind was better served making the cure available to everyone, not just people with fat wallets.

Now that cures and R&D for medical advances are mostly carried out by for-profit corporations instead of independent professors and universities, we have not seen a real cure for anything in over half a century - despite our vastly increased knowledge and technology as compared to Dr. Sauk's time. This is one area where capitalism fails. Money is made not by curing but by treating; keeping people sick is more profitable than a bona fide cure, and that is what we're seeing in today's world. How many millions have been funneled into cancer research and the best they can do is invent a massively expensive treatment that might extend life by a few months. Seriously? Is that all?

Something isn't right, and I feel that the profit motive combined with medical research has stunted the quality of our health care.

[Deleted]

Would it be possible to pass a law in Congress requiring that Pharmaceutical companies export their drugs to other countries without decreasing the price?

I see 2 problems with this. 1. Our prices would go up (because the more you make of something, the less it costs). 2. Some countries wouldn't be able to afford some treatments. The liberals in this country would go CRAZY (we are letting people die just because they can't afford health care? We should bring them to the U.S. where they can get it for FREE).

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 17:08:20 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

Cap the cost of pharmaceuticals, pick a percentage over the cost to manufacture and do not allow the drug to be sold for more in the US. This formula can take into account R&D costs and the percent can decrease as time goes on.

Another way...patients should always question their perscriptions. Dr's love to perscribe medications. Also, if they perscribe a name branded drug, ask for generics instead.

[ugonow]

People complain about the pharma/ medical industry / elected official relationship a lot,but do they ever stop to think someone must protect these people from the libs and be able to seek a profit? They need profits to keep comming out with better and improved drugs or treatments.If not protected from the socialist dems,we would still be taking Carters liver pills.

[ChiTownVenture]

If not protected from the socialist dems,we would still be taking Carters liver pills.

Like they do in Europe?

Pharmaceuticals use to be developed at Universities and Hospitals, it wasn't until someone figured out that they could make substantial profits that it became such a business.

I'm all for business making a profit, and recovering R&D expenses but I'm not for price gouging when it comes to pharmaceuticals. I'm also not keen on American's not being able to afford prescriptions when people in other countries are handed theirs for free. Especially when They are American companies giving those medications away.

What are the other options? Keep subsidizing pharmaceuticals for other countries so that the US doesn't give the appearance of restricting the corporations, even though they cater to those restrictions when dealing with other countries?

What other options are there, or just keep the status quo?

[stats45]

Pharmaceutical companies are in the business for profit. Good. That should make them more efficient. It doesn't, however, because other institutions take that profit motive and pervert it.

If I started a company and made new widgets, people would probably take to my widgets if they provided more utility for a lower price. Now imagine that instead of having to sell the widgets on an open market that I first have to have the widgets approved by the 'WDA', and then people will respond to the widget being 'WDA approved' rather than its usefullness in solving a problem.

This is just part of the problem with prescription drugs.

[traelin0]

Dec 29, 2010 11:24:37 GMT -5 stats45 said:

Pharmaceutical companies are in the business for profit. Good. That should make them more efficient. It doesn't, however, because other institutions take that profit motive and pervert it.

If I started a company and made new widgets, people would probably take to my widgets if they provided more utility for a lower price. Now imagine that instead of having to sell the widgets on an open market that I first have to have the widgets approved by the 'WDA', and then people will respond to the widget being 'WDA approved' rather than its usefullness in solving a problem.

This is just part of the problem with prescription drugs.

Bingo, stats. The "WDA approval" favors the largest of the corporations, regardless of the industry in question, because they are the ones that can afford to adhere to the regulatory spider web. In this case, govt. inevitably colludes with Big Pharma to regulate the small innovators out of business. We can argue the intent, but certainly not the results.

Can anyone say with a straight face that an FDA run by ex-Big Agri and Big Pharma CEOs would *not* favor those same entities? The problem is a result of govt. comingled with corporations...even the issue of our printing press devaluing the currency we use to pay for these prescription drugs.

[ugonow]

Advertising and greased wheels make sales. If I was starting a pharma company,I would stick to anti depressants and pain killers,advertise the crap out of them by making people think all their problems will be solved,reward doctors that feature them,and make large contributions to those politicians that benefit me. That is how it should be. Free markets at work.

[traelin0]

Dec 29, 2010 11:37:58 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Advertising and greased wheels make sales. If I was starting a pharma company,I would stick to anti depressants and pain killers,advertise the crap out of them by making people think all their problems will be solved,reward doctors that feature them,and make large contributions to those politicians that benefit me. That is how it should be. Free markets at work.

Like I said, what free markets? Mom and Pops don't stand a chance in America anymore. You just described the seeds of "fascism", not "capitalism".

[ugonow]

Can anyone say with a straight face that an FDA run by ex-Big Agri and Big Pharma CEOs would *not* favor those same entities?

Can you say with a straight face this is not how the free market system works? Do you think K Street has no connections to government agencies or legislations? They hold the purse strings.Do you have any idea how many politicians are lobbyists,were lobbyists or employ lobbyists? Mony talks,bs walks.The free market works.

[magichat]

Dec 29, 2010 11:39:30 GMT -5 @traelin0 said:

Dec 29, 2010 11:37:58 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Advertising and greased wheels make sales. If I was starting a pharma company,I would stick to anti depressants and pain killers,advertise the crap out of them by making people think all their problems will be solved,reward doctors that feature them,and make large contributions to those politicians that benefit me. That is how it should be. Free markets at work.

Like I said, what free markets? Mom and Pops don't stand a chance in America anymore. You just described the seeds of "fascism", not "capitalism".

Mom and pops shouldn't stand a chance, they were lousing at running their business in the first place, didn't pay for crap, relied on child labor and had little benefits. So why should a market favor any of that?