Bowsite.com

If those nations do not want to buy American drugs, they can develop their own.

So it is safe to say that you never worked for anything or invested in a business.

Statements like the above imply a working knowledge of the topic; I'm sure then in short order, and off the top of your head you can answer:

1. Countries that have comparable entities to the FDA and the regulations and resultant costs imposed on US drug manufacturers.

2. The percent of drugs on an annual basis tested and developed by drug companies and the associated costs associated with that testing and development.

3. The expense associated with:

a. Getting a drug to Phase I trial status

b. Getting a drug to human testing status

c. Getting a drug through final FDA review and to market

4. The period of time in which a drug company can realize profits after the expense associated with all of the above.

5. The average percent of said profits that by necessity must go into R&D annually.

Now if you know what you're talking about you really should be able to at least provide a basic response to each question posed.

There's nothing wrong with righteous indignation; there's plenty wrong however with indignation fueled by ignorance and posited in a hypocritical manner.

We'll see which version yours mirrors, won't we?

Obama-care alone increased prescription drugs out of pocket costs by 34 percent just this past year.

somebody flip the egg timer

I see your cognitive skills aren't much better in this iteration. Speaking to the cost of one drug is not speaking to the aggregate cost of doing business. You have a weak case for part of what I posted and none whatsoever for Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 so try again.

Try again and answer the questions in your own words seeing as you post as if you have more than the layman's limited understanding. Try to do so in a manner that doesn't insult the intelligence of people who actually know what they're talking about.

Tell the class while you're at it the Corporate tax rate of the United States versus that of Canada and Europe. Those little details also factor into business costs.

You seem equally ignorant about a basic tenet of free market capitalism, supply and demand. When demand exceeds supply prices go up.

Try doing some actual research before posting another liberal treatise on the heartlessness of big Pharma and the evils of capitalism that only showcase your extreme myopia.

The Rock

Rocky, I am surprised that you would fall for such leftist, anti-capitalistic, anti free market propaganda.

Anyone who gets their "information" from 60 minutes deserves to be deceived. I can see it from a child, but not from you.

obamacare sets up death panels. The free market does it by who can pay. Neither seems like a great plan, but neither does stopping medical research because it produces cures that not all can afford.

I know that some things are in short supply because the profit margin isn't worth the financial risk.

"Medical Tourism" has become big business. People fly to Taiwaon or Thailand to have major operations, saving thousands over what it would cost in the U.S.

The Amish, who don't believe in insurance, go down to Mexico for things like hesterectomies. (spelling). The couple we know were very satisfied with the care.

A town in Mexico just across the border from where we stay in Texas for the winter is lined with dental offices. Winter Texans flock in there for dental work. The office we go to must have 7 or 8 dentists. No appointment is needed and they are open 7 days a week. These are highly skilled American trained dentists and doctors.

My wife had a crown come off and the Mexican dentist reglued it for $20. She also had one come off up here in the states and the American dentist charged $149 to do the same thing.

Cleaning and checkup is $20. Crowns are about $300. I had 13 crowns and two bridges done. The bill was $3500. For the first time in my life I have nice looking teeth.

Need drugs, you can buy them across the counter with no prescription. Winter Texans load up on the drugs they need, including insulan. It suprises me but the American border guards have no problem with you taking them across the border.

Thank you. Articles do not mean a damned thing to me when all are beholden to lies when profits enter the picture. 60 minutes did not and will never ever enter into my equation of what I am led to believe. This one segment of corporate "raping" I know first hand.. or as firsthand as a citizen can get.

These companies in conjunction with world governments, and the U.S. leads the pack, have cornered the market on your life of which you have NO recourse what so ever. Literally pay or die because they are not Sears with a credit plan.

The Rock

For those drugs that do make it to commercial success, drug companies must make sufficient profit to endure future problems, as well as pay for the drugs that don't make it. There is risk involved in bringing drugs to market, so when one gets there, they can and should make a good profit.

Only an economic illiterate ignores risk when looking at profit. But liberalism requires economic illiteracy, so that is no surprise.

There is nothing as tragic as the willfully economic illiterate.....

Businesses exist to make profits. Profitable companies are able to keep people gainfully employed, provide in some cases excellent benefits for said employees, add to the tax base and in many cases provide for the common good through building and maintenance of schools, hospitals, police and fire departments as well as helping to hold down property tax values.

Businesses do not exist to gratify the preconceptions of what they should or should not be for any individual or collective individuals. The "businesses must be altruistic" meme is strictly a utopian (liberal) fantasy; of course clingers of such beliefs hold that this would be possible if we could only muster the will to tax the producers at 99.9999% of their earnings.

And Mike in CT, save your lesson on whatever it is you're trying to teach for someone that cares what you have to say.

The posts I make are twofold in purpose; the first is to provide information that can be researched by any and all desirous of expanding their own personal knowledge base. I do so with the understanding that many here have the open-mindedness and are secure enough in their beliefs and convictions to feel this is a worthy endeavor. I do not post for those who's every utterance showcases their willful ignorance and whose mind's are closed tighter than the average mollusk's shell at low tide.

Second, I do not allow falsehoods to stand unchallenged-ever. I do however give the poster the opportunity to respond and to show some semblance of knowledge about the topic other than what they can regurgitate off of a google search of any progressive liberal outlet.

I reluctant to engage you mostly because your arrogance masks your message.

Actually I suspect your reluctance stems more from that welling sense of despair someone feels when they realize they have brought a knife to a gun fight.

You have some assumptions in your retort that need some adjusting as well: For example: "Tell the class while you're at it the Corporate tax rate of the United States versus that of Canada and Europe."

Which corrections were you referring to? You ended your "rebuttal" with telling us the effective corporate tax rate in Mexico. Did Mexico annex Canada and Europe while I was typing the question? Did you skip "Geography for Dummies" at your last DU self-help meeting?

Hey, here's a thought-while you're traipsing around in Guadalupe how about getting a comparison of the cost of litigation for Mexican drug companies as opposed to US companies? You can kill 3 birds with one stone too-get the same for Canada and Europe too while you're there....

Look its pretty simple: If people have to resort to Canadian drugs, procedures in South American and South East Asia, then there is a clear problem.

One which you have demonstrated not even the rudimentary basic understanding to even venture a guess as to why.

Meltdown of latest iteration in 5,4,3,2,1......

On selling the drugs cheaper to other countries I remember hearing that Canada threatened Pfizer I believe that if they didn't sell them the drugs at a significant discount they would just open up their own plants and manufacture themselves.

It's a complicated issue and neither side is pure that is for sure.

I'm sure they leverage this in any way possible, sometimes in what could be challenged as unethical practice. OTOH all the factors involved are not being considered.... by some...

Knock off drugs made in countries that don't recognize the drug patents are simply manufactured. They did no research, no trials, no regulation and no litigation expenses, insurance, etc. that was needed to bring the drug to market..... nor need to use profits to develop other drugs, eat the costs on those unsuccessful. They simply make it, bottle it and sell it.

Yet some would compare the prices of drugs made "illegally"???? Clueless does not even start....

How in the hell can you defend those who will watch your children die for a pre manufactured profit margin that you may not be able to meet.

Unfuqnbelievable.

The Rock

For starters the few that do have done so in a far less broad-reaching scope than you'd like to imply. Some have in fact pointed out flaws in your thinking. As your comprehension skills closely mirror your grasp of economics I'm not surprised the distinction and the discordant comments have eluded you.

I'll answer that: Im the new guy, easy target.

Actually your pretty much the same guy we've seen under various names for the past 10-11 months. You're a "target" because you're a fraud and a coward. You settle on a conservative-leaning hunting forum with the sole purpose of trying to see how much of an irritant you can be in the brief lifespan you'll enjoy once the editors get wind of you and show you the door (yet again).

Yes, of course business is in business to make money, thank you Capt Obvious.

So then why pray tell did that point sail right over your head on multiple occasions? Maybe your geography teacher also taught you reading comprehension perhaps?

Im not saying they shouldnt make a profit, thats ludicrous in a capitalist economy.

Yet you make a judgement bereft of even a basic understanding of the costs involved, the window of opportunity to realize the fruits of said costs and the immediate and long-term societal benefits provided. What's ludicrous is the way you continue to parade your ignorance from the rooftops.

This report underscored to me how our society has truly gone astray in the pursuit of profit.

Contrast that gem with:

"Im not saying they shouldnt make a profit, thats ludicrous in a capitalist economy."

You do realize it's awfully hard to see what point you're trying to make when you contradict yourself so blatantly. If by your words you expect businesses in a capitalist society to make a profit and to expect otherwise would be (your words again) "ludicrous" then how do you equate doing what you advocate is the function of business in a capitalist economy to "going astray?" (Hint-that's the danger in parroting others thoughts as opposed to cultivating your own.)

Perhaps if you had even an iota of understanding of the costs involved, the ROI you might adjust your thinnking about the profit motive.

These pharmaceutical companies are not looking for a fair return but are looking to maximize profit even at the expense of peoples health and lives.

Given that you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the factors involved you are completly unqualified to render an opinion on what pharmaceutical companies are looking for. The fact of the matter is you're another demonstration of the wonders of liberal indoctrination and you couldn't find the answer now with both hands and a good guide dog.

By the way, you've been in meltdown mode for awhile now-thanks again for the side show and in your words "good-bye".

My wife worked for a small company that only had one insulin drug in the pipeline, they worked for years on this , the delivery system was supposed to be different than what was currently available. In the end it wasn't different enough so the FDA did not approve it. She was with them for 5 years developing that drug, they were working on it for 3 or 4 years prior to her getting there, as far as I know they are still trying to modify things and get it approved, that was 3 years ago. Not one cent to date was collected in revenue for that drug, just expenses born by investors. The large companies may have many drugs in their pipeline at a given time most fail.

It seems some want a capitalistic society only when it's convenient.

Link is to a long, but well-worth the effort read. No "hide the peanut" or "fuzzy math" or accounting sleight-of-hand, just raw numbers (costs).

bb,

Once again thanks for a great post. While still in the clinical arena I did some research on what at the time was supposed to be the new wonder antibiotic for Pfizer, Trovofloxacin (Trovan). Anyone who wants to can do a search for "Pfizer" "litigation" "trovofloxacin" and get back to us with the results.

Bottom line? After all the money poured into developing the drug it went down in flames and legal costs pretty much put the "finis" stamp on Pfizer developing new antibiotics.

The Truly Staggering Cost Of Inventing New Drugs

Thanks, Mike.

My question is: "Why all the TV/media adds WRT "Ask your doctor...? Must be that physicians are too busy filling out Obamacare forms, reading regulations and attempting to manage their practices to read Pharm advertising sent to them...or squeezing in their sales reps. ;o)

My wife is in two years remission now from ovarian cancer. Surgery and 8 months of chemo. And on trails for a very promising drug who's cost per dose every 3 weeks was $20,000... per dose. We applied for an exemption as we could not afford that, already near bankruptcy for other costs involved, as well as a few perfect storms going on. Our doctor was very adamant that this new drug could be the key to our situation. Insurance would not pay for it as it was deemed an experimental drug. We were accepted and paid nothing for the next 6 months of treatment.

Most drug companies have programs to get life saving drugs to those, especially children, who cannot afford them. There are a good many charities who help as well. It may be one can point to a child who life saving drugs were denied..... but I have never seen nor heard of one.

There is no need to put up a defense if not indicted unless you are guilty. These companies have been criminal in every facet since and running counter to the Hippocratic Oath.

The Rock

After all, the doctors shouldn't make money off their work, nor the test lab, nor the hospital.....that's all because of greed, too.

That pharmaceutical company profit is in most of our IRA's and 401k retirement accounts.

Capitalist? You are to capitalism what Josef Mengele was to pediatrics.

Nonsense. Do not confuse the lack of criminal proceedings with a lack of indictment. There is the court of public opinion and there are ramifications to allowing allegations to stand unchallenged. Please tell me you are not naive enough to below otherwise.

As to the motives of the authors it's called "setting the record straight." As I said there's no hiding the peanut; the numbers are there; challenge them if you like and post your sources. FYI, "I heard from so-and-so" does not constitute a proof source. I've put up my work, pony up with yours.

Seeing as you view your posts as trying to set the record straight I find it disappointing and hypocritical to begrude others the same opportunity.

Among the citations:

"Sep 15, 2013 - Pharmaceutical companies each give away more than $200 million worth of free prescription medications each year. Learn how you can take ..."

Of course none of this fits the false narrative, does it?

Actually you've yet to find a single story that didn't fit my narrative. You've found stories that fit your narrative and excluded all that do not. I've never said there aren't horror stories, you've painted them as SOP.

Lets see which accounts are more accurate because as far as I can see, you just included a little blurb no doubt put out by big Pharma.

As far as you can see? I seriously doubt that's much further than the end of your nose. Considering the search returned over 147,000,000 hits in less than half a second unless you've got more computing power than the NSA I highly doubt you got much past page 1.

You certainly missed all the sources not consisting of Big Pharma and some of them were actually on page one. Personally if I were you I wouldn't list "powers of observation" as "job skills" on your resume.

But you stick to your narrative, because everything is fine.

The truth is it's own reward. Look at how wound up my posting it's gotten you....

But it doesnt matter because our soul is dirty, your morals stink and you dont give a rats ass about anyone that cant afford life saving meds. Its just how you're made, but its still sad and pathetic.

You know it's uncanny how accurately you've just described yourself. Sad and pathetic is exactly how I'd characterize someone whose life is some devoid of meaning and accomplishment that they would incessently troll conservative forums to show the lack of ideas, values and integrity they possess.

Take a bow sunshine and listen closely....that swooshing sound you hear is the door about to close on you again.

Hasta la vista baby.....

Another study from Science Based Medicine: What does a new drug cost?

This is related, if one has a little bit of scientific knowledge:

I am thinking that much of this will become quite moot in the not too distant future as there is a greater and greater move towards genome based treatment of disease and treatment will be targeted for many chronic diseases and cancer based upon an individual's personal genetic make up. Pharmacology will be moving away from specific drugs to individualized treatment protocols and drug costs will loose due to lack of scale.

I could also post "hundreds of thousands" (maybe that is a slight exaggeration) of scientific research papers...not stories...dealing with genomic medical research. One example of a paper read today is that recent twin studies have identified possible cues to the development (and future treatment)of Type II Diabetes. Learning the mechanism of a disease can lead to a non-drug cure by manipulation of a sufferer's genetic make-up.

The Rock

Option 2: Somebody with a lot of money sits on it because there is great risk in investment and if they do make a profit will be vilified. The drug is not developed and nobody has to buy a very expensive drug to save their life.

Interesting that you should mention the move from pharmacological agents into genomic therapies. I don't know if you're familiar with them but Jackson Laboratories is currently "renting" space at the University of CT Health Center while waiting for their state-of-the-art research building to open in early November.

Knowing your interest I think you'll enjoy checking out the link.

Diagnostic medicine is going the same route in many arenas too; Maldi-TOF MS has been adapted from the old toxicology and DOA screening to bacterial, yeast and mycobacterial identification. The etiologic agent of diseases can now be identified in minutes as opposed to a few days to a few weeks to even a few months for the agents listed.

Impact to patient care in rapid ID? On average you're looking at a per patient, per day savings of about $19,000.

Oh hell, there I go again dredging up societal benefits from the work of evil corporations.....

One of the periodicals I read regularly is "GEN: Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News". Love the links to science apps...I pass a number of them on to the teachers at school.

I also read a number of other publications such as Design Engineering, Pharmaceutical & Medical Packaging, Biophotonics, etc. Good stuff!

Pharmacology is a changing science due to not only the decoding of the genome, but also the increasing understanding of epigenetics and how methylation of DNA switches on/off and modifies genes. Not only has this changed approaches to designing new drugs, but also the development of new methodologies and views of treatment of disease.

Sociology and political science are not real science no matter how much liberals wish it were so.

Tell me dock,

When was our society not astray in pursuit of profit?

Thanks for the PM and here's something you'll likely find of interest.

Facts abound about the costs of failure despite those who would apply the 3 monkey's approach to the real world.

"It is impossible to enlighten the unconscious."

Many drugs that are developed never come to market for a number of reasons. Yet, they incur a great amount of investment that never is recovered financially. This has been mentioned previously, but the following is an example. Considering the number of pharmaceutical companies, I would guess that more drugs are developed that never produce any revenue for the company than those that find a place in the realm of medical treatments.

Without profits, there would be no pharmaceutical companies.

From today's Drug Discovery and Development:

"Given the rapidly evolving hepatitis C (HCV) treatment landscape in the U.S., Bristol-Myers Squibb has decided that it will not pursue U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the dual regimen of daclatasvir and asunaprevir for the treatment of HCV genotype 1b patients in the United States and has therefore withdrawn its new drug application (NDA) for asunaprevir, an NS3/4A protease inhibitor."

Anything the government gets involved in turns to crap.

Free market capitalism is the answer to outrageous healthcare costs. We don't have that.

We have not had free market capitalism in the HC industry. We have had nothing more than crony capitalism (aka state run capitalism) More akin to Chinese practices than pure capitalism.

If America was still a capitalist nation, HC would be MUCH cheaper.

I can get $2M in life insurance for less than a grand a year. But I can't get HC for me and my kids less than $1100 a month.

I can get life insurance from hundreds of vendors. I can get HC from, realistically, 3. Hmmm.

I wonder how he'd feel if there were no drugs or treatments developed and the sick and dying just died. Treatment modalities do not appear out of thin air, whole cloth or by any vehicle other than capital investment. Without a return there ceases to be capital investment.

Would you prefer to return to the days of epidemics of childhood polio? smallpox? whooping cough?

Would you like to return to the days of high infant mortality and high incidence of women dying from childbirth-related post-partum infection?

I'll pray on that.

By all means please do. Throwing in a moment or two of some deep thinking wouldn't hurt either.

I wonder how he'd feel if there were no drugs or treatments developed and the sick and dying just died. Treatment modalities do not appear out of thin air, whole cloth or by any vehicle other than capital investment. Without a return there ceases to be capital investment.

Would you prefer to return to the days of epidemics of childhood polio? smallpox? whooping cough?

Would you like to return to the days of high infant mortality and high incidence of women dying from childbirth-related post-partum infection?

I'll pray on that.

By all means please do. Throwing in a moment or two of some deep thinking wouldn't hurt either.

There are those rare individuals who have done just that. Amazing people I'm sure. Most of who were either given or earned the means to do so before hand. I certainly see none of that in these newbie's.....

The vast majority of people want to be paid for their time, effort, materials and skills. Including these liberals here (if actually employed and trying to support a family) yet demand "somebody else who can afford it" to make the sacrifice for them. Incredible.

You want to save a dying child? Like in the real world? Donate to one of several foundations and organizations (mostly church based orgs if willing to open your eyes and see) devoted to just that and quit demonizing that which you know nothing about. Better yet, go out and start your own foundation for the children. Actually make a difference yourself rather than hold your breath till you're blue in an attempt to force someone else to do it for you.

Of course they can; all they need to do is consult their Ouija Board or Crystal Ball to tell exactly what trials will pan out, what the profit margin on the drugs that make it to market will be, if their will be unforeseen side-effects that will result in litigation costs....etc....

If there were such a thing as an "ignorance meter" the needle would have broken off with that gem.

Not that I buy a single line of your BS resume but you've got all the makings of a great professor in some esteemed liberal institution. What you think you know wouldn't fill a thimble and what you don't know could refill every ocean.

You can't fix stupid....

Laughable given your year-long history of posting liberal bilge under one fictituous name after another.

Consider it ad hominem for ad nauseum.

Obviously you had a hard time comprehending the obvious so I've posted the link again.

It really isn't for you, it's for those who may still harbor any doubt as to the degree of your ignorance.

See the difference between you and I?

Quite clearly, as I'm sure every other protagonist of yours on this board does with equal clarity.

You are the petulant child determined to be heard in a room full of adults. You are the imitation of art that wants to hang alongside the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. You are the latest version of the person who has never lived outside of the academic bubble and lives in complete ignorance of reality. You are the empty vessel easily filled with whatever flavor of the month is being dispensed in those repositories of failed ideologies.

You are a one-trick pony, unimaginative, uninspiring and ultimately boring.

I rest my case WRT working.... but because of your likely prior history I can't believe a word of it. Lord knows who you really are. You're dishonest even about your reasons why and how you came to be here. Certainly not a bowhunter. A prolific poster who has nothing on the regular forum.

Even if true, a great case could be made you in the field of "academia" are grossly overpaid. I don't see you volunteering to take a cut in pay. I would guess you're donations to St Jude, etc. are nonexistent as well. Got no rubber where it meets the road. You want others to sacrifice "for a good cause" when you yourself do not.

Once again, the very foundation of liberalism is their desire to FORCE their views on the rest of mankind.... literally from the barrel of those guns they hate so much. AND have those who are the most productive foot the bill for their wish list while they sit on the sideline in smug elitist satisfaction. For your own good of course....

... thinking of you! I only wish the new ALK medicine would have provided her a longer life. I am still working in the oncology space, but no longer at Pfizer. I work for Roche/Genentech in San Francisco. I just learned that ALK patients have many more options once they fail the Pfizer drug. Good for patients with the mutation. I have a heavy heart knowing this was not available for your mom. Prayers for her, wish I could have met her.

We encourage respectful,thoughtful and intelligent opinions, even those counter to the prevailing conservative bend of this site.

However, it is fair to warn you that over the years many have come here as Trolls and have been exposed by things as simple as google searches on the names of who they claim to be, or folks who are experts in a field totally debunking the troll's "personna".

Those folks have been "POOFED"

In a way its a game for us and if you are legit and can hold your own in an intelligent conversation you will do well here.

However, if you rely on Google, Wikipaedia, or this Administration's liberal Sound bites, you will be eaten alive.

See the thing is that the liberal administration relies on low infermation voters. A few catch phrases and talking points goes along way to convince LIV's. There is never a counter arguement. No confirmation or proof needed, just pie in the sky and every one holding hands singing Kumbaya. NOT HERE

Here all view points will be tested unmercifully. If an arguement is weak, or person not "genuine" then the truth will be exposed.

After all that is what we are here for.

"You are the petulant child determined to be heard in a room full of adults. You are the imitation of art that wants to hang alongside the Mona Lisa in the Louvre."

Nice try but as anyone with an IQ above a pencil can clearly see the analogy was clearly directed at you.

Most would consider it amazing that such an easy distinction would elude an "educator."

The remainder of your self-serving drivel doesn't merit a response. Take your pity party elsewhere.

I am a bowhunter in NY and CT. I post in those states as well as here.

PaulZ, BenG, CarlRI, RI Bowhunter all posted in the CT conference. Ask anyone in "the club" what these posters all had in common.

I just find this area interesting and I enjoy the spirited debates. I'd think someone as learned as you and Mike would welcome that.

Then I would suggest by posting on topics you have at least a basic working knowledge or understanding of. It has become painfully apparent that on this thread that is most definitely not the case. The links provided by Jack, myself and the insights offered by others have showcased your ignorance of this topic; re-posting the same nonsense a second or third time is not "spirited debate"; it is the quintessential demonstration of trolling.

Now I await the responses of "you don't bring value, you are just here to irritate and incite and so on..."

I take it you're familiar with the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy?

Bring value, not something I can find in 0.44 seconds by searching left-leaning blogs and debunk in half that time.

Angry? Hell sparky, you'd have to be interesting first....

bb,

Sorry for the length of time to get back to you on this. FDA chart that gives a pretty good picture of all phases in drug development with average costs and times.

You can also search the site per the link and check out some other interesting facts.

One other link you may find interesting and one I'm sure Jack will as well.

Have a couple more that I will send you this weekend. There was a related article in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing I read this morning while at school.

Link to a brief video you should find interesting. I first heard of this 1920's origin while reading Dr. Peter Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS virus".

I counted at least 6 ads in a bit over an hour..... all run by lawyers looking for someone who had taken a medication and had complications from it. One I remember was a blood thinner and one complaint was excessive bleeding from an injury.....

But 6 ads fishing for folks to file lawsuits against drug companies..... and then folks here complaining about the high costs of drugs by these evil companies, folks with obviously zero experience in running any kind of business and clueless as to how expenses are paid for.

WRT liberal attacks on drug companies.... BS, stinky runny BS. The entire medical system and profession from doctors to drug companies could have had major reforms from bundling contracts and bidding on drugs as stated earlier as well as some real tort reform, open competition across state lines, many many things that would have effected costs to everyone.

Not one damn thing in thousands of pages of Obamacare legislation address anything that would actually lower the real expenses incurred by those in the industry. Things that would actually lower costs WITHOUT lowering quality of care. Many cases they intentionally raised costs by ADDING A SEPARATE SPECIAL TAX TO MEDICAL DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT. Brilliant. Even adding an entire new agency to the federal government that never existed before, yet claim there will be a savings by streamlining paperwork. Kinda forgot to add back in the costs involved with an entire new agency.

The only thing they are trying to do to limit cost is put the squeeze on providers, the ones actually doing the work, limit what will be paid out for services. They are finding more and more are opting out rather than work for nothing.

". and then folks here complaining about the high costs of drugs by these evil companies, folks with obviously zero experience in running any kind of business and clueless as to how expenses are paid for."

Maybe you could enlighten me. Someone who has been in a 3rd generation family business since 1954 with 27 full and part time employees. I would not know.

Let me give you some ABC type information. The Pharms are scumbags. Period. Other then being in my families portfolio they could perish tomorrow without a tear. That void would be filled post haste as long as dead presidents were still being thrown around. Tell us the breakdown of these "costs" Their highest "EXPENSES" as you put it are overwhelmingly "MARKETETING." Get it. Not development and research like you are obviously so easily led to believe. Come on. Someone here prove me wrong.

Is it any wonder how Obama was elected?

The Rock

One point; the link to the Forbes article on the high cost of bringing a drug to market reflects the total cost of the business to get the drug to market.

To illustrate with an easy example; if you took the production cost of an automobile as the total cost to the manufacturer you'd be well off the actual total cost, even if you included the cost of the physical plant, the cost of all the lines, all the employees and utilities.

You'd be off because you haven't included the costs in sales & marketing. It's not enough to make the product you need to create a demand for the product and then sell the product.

Many of the analyses of Big Pharma Marketing costs include the cost of the sales force in their figures. It's entirely appropriate but to the average layman it makes it appear that all those Viagra ads are where all the money's going.

Additionally the drug pipeline is exponentially higher than what gets to market. You've had all the expenses and gotten zero financial gain.

An inescapable economic reality is the winners have to more than compensate for the losers; a zero sum game means the company goes belly-up.

Belly-up drug companies develop no effective treatment modalities and certainly develop zero cures.

The Rock

LOL! I'm sure it was a big topic on DU/KOS and on the campus of stoned profs and young mindfulls of mush.... back in the Bush days.....

Not much of a noise from them the last 6 years is there....

General public... no, not so much.... most of your voters you'd lose with "no, I'm only buying you ONE pack of cigarettes...." much less explaining what a "military industrial complex" was....

Rocky, I wasn't really addressing you. But I would expect you to know business and business expenses. Many seem to feel pharma should be a non-profit agency and go by a different profit and loss rules than others. Go ahead, make it one. And you will see the advent of new and effective treatments trickle to near nothing.

If they went away tomorrow..... you would really see the cost in lives. People seem to live in "what have you done for me today?" and the fact is you look back 10-20 years and folks are surviving things today most died from back then. Incredible advances. Do you really think pharma business was any different then than now?

You look back years from today you will see the same if not more advances. But not if they were made non-profit. Who would set themselves up for that smack down when something goes wrong for a pat on the back and a hearty handshake? Only those with no ultimate responsibility. Those best at ducking it.

It's not just drugs. What about medical equipment, software, surgery tech... all that has gone off the charts expensive. All "making money off the sick and dying". Also saving the sick and the dying in record numbers. Pharma is just one leg of the table, but seems to be the one folks want to kick most.

The pharmaceutical industry is responsible for the production of antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, cancer treatments, diabetes treatments and treatment modalities for abnormalities or disease states relative to the thyroid, liver, pancreas, heart and lungs.

The people who require any of the above by definition are either sick and/or dying and an unavoidable consequence of said condition(s) is that purchases of the agents listed is required. The logical conclusion of your thesis is that sick and/or dying just die.

When did you morph into Allan Grayson?

I've been on the Bowsite for about 16 years now and that statement is easily the most clueless I've seen in all those years. Thank you for clearly showcasing your ignorance for any who might have harbored doubts.

It should be against the law for doctors to receive any money or compensation for their treatment decisions the same way it should be against the law for politicians to receive money or compensation for their vote.

Hey sparky, you've already proven your ignorance, no need for another illustration.

Aside from those who's background was as a clinician (e.g. Bill Frist, Tom Coburn, etc.) to equate the two fields is patently absurd.

By your prodigious illogic it should also be against the law for police to be paid for "profitiing through the prevention of crime" or for fireman to be paid for "profiting through the prevention of the destruction of property and loss of life".

Your response is not consistent with "spirited debate." It is however remarkably consistent with the behavior of a troll.

Thanks for dropping the pretense.