The real reason U.S. drug prices are so high

[CowboyTed]

Profits. Yes!
Ripping the public off. NO!

Stock holders including many public employee unions want the companies they own to generate profits, shocking! /sarcasm

Why can't they charge what the market will bare? If you want to address the real problem you might want to ask congress why they won't allow Americans to purchase the drugs cheaper from Canada. Specifically why Dem's didn't fix that when passing Obamacare.

Couple of things:

Charing what the market will bare? How much is your child's life worth?

Obama tried to address drug prices but there is too much money lobbying against them from Dem and GOP. During the year coming up to Obamacare bill the healthcare lobby was spending $1 million a day.

Revealed: millions spent by lobbyists fighting Obama health reforms

They could have paid for a majority campaign. Thats serious influence. With Citizens united any one who voted there way could have there campaign paid for... But it is not bribery but free speech.

 

[CowboyTed]

I think you need to look at who owns these public pharma companies, I'm sure the teachers unions are quite happy with the profits.

So Teachers Unions are happy with jacking up the prices for sick kids. Have you one iota of proof?

 

[gipper]

The pharmaceutical industry defends the price spikes as a means of funding research to develop new drugs. But a close look at the finances of more than a dozen public drug companies illustrates research and development expenses are routinely smaller than company overheads, including marketing costs. And often after-tax profits still greatly exceed those R&D expenses that the companies say are so high.

Corporate America! What a joke.
The real reason U.S. drug prices are so high

Well...they need lots of money for marketing. You know...to buy big gov regulators and corrupt politicians. Big gov controlled capitalism is great for...big gov.

 

[CowboyTed]

Profits. Yes!
Ripping the public off. NO!

Stock holders including many public employee unions want the companies they own to generate profits, shocking! /sarcasm

Why can't they charge what the market will bare? If you want to address the real problem you might want to ask congress why they won't allow Americans to purchase the drugs cheaper from Canada. Specifically why Dem's didn't fix that when passing Obamacare.

If you want to address the real problem you might want to ask congress why they won't allow Americans to purchase the drugs cheaper from Canada.

Because other countries basically steal our drugs.

But hang on, these companies are not owned by America. Novartis HQ is in Switzerland. Actually a lot of Pharma companies have HQ in Switzerland(tax reasons I have been told).

These companies have less lobbying power in these countries to be able to influence prices. In Europe each country negotiates the price of the drug for everyone, why? Because they are the largest buyer and equality law means that what the government says it will pay is the price for everyone...
There is talk that the EU might negotiate the price for all the countries, that will mean even bigger savings.

The truth is that the combined spend on R&D by the top 15 or so companies is $70billion worldwide. The US taxpayers alone 1.5 trillion on healthcare, private spending doubles that amount.

The total spend on Healthcare worldwide is 6.5 trillion..

So if you would be lucky to say Private R&D (which we round up to $100 billion) would make 1.5% of world healthcare spending. It is be cheaper for everyone when drugs are discovered by a public owned or charity organisation. The race between public and private to solve the main diseases is considered to be quite intense. If the public win the drug is cheap if private win drug is expensive, the way the trails work first to win has a lower bar than the ones behind.

 

[CowboyTed]

The pharmaceutical industry defends the price spikes as a means of funding research to develop new drugs. But a close look at the finances of more than a dozen public drug companies illustrates research and development expenses are routinely smaller than company overheads, including marketing costs. And often after-tax profits still greatly exceed those R&D expenses that the companies say are so high.

Corporate America! What a joke.
The real reason U.S. drug prices are so high

Well...they need lots of money for marketing. You know...to buy big gov regulators and corrupt politicians. Big gov controlled capitalism is great for...big gov.

While money is spent there the main Marketing budget goes on Medical Reps and Doctor incentives...


Gipper I know you are a smaller gov guy but gove will be always needed. Gov needs to efficient and working for Americans not Corporations or other foreign countries(that includes Israel). I have shown before that government works in some areas and not in others but it has to be free from special interests. Lobbyists are the tool of special interests. No other first world country would tolerate the way lobbyists and money has corrupted the US system of government.
Remember it wasn't an army that brought down Rome, it was internal corruption that did the real damage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

God forbid someone goes through the trouble of inventing, marketing, and distributing drugs that help people live better lives, in exchange for a profit.

If you want to bitch about something drug companies do, how about the fact that they market psycodrugs for every sort of bad day and that every mass shooter I'm aware of was prescribed some of that shit.

I have my beefs with the industry, but the mere fact they make a profit isn't it.

It does seem odd to me that for the same drug the price in Canada is reportedly much lower.

When Canada threatens to steal your IP if you don't sell them your drug cheaply, what's odd about it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Profits. Yes!
Ripping the public off. NO!

Stock holders including many public employee unions want the companies they own to generate profits, shocking! /sarcasm

Why can't they charge what the market will bare? If you want to address the real problem you might want to ask congress why they won't allow Americans to purchase the drugs cheaper from Canada. Specifically why Dem's didn't fix that when passing Obamacare.

Couple of things:

Charing what the market will bare? How much is your child's life worth?

Obama tried to address drug prices but there is too much money lobbying against them from Dem and GOP. During the year coming up to Obamacare bill the healthcare lobby was spending $1 million a day.

Revealed: millions spent by lobbyists fighting Obama health reforms

They could have paid for a majority campaign. Thats serious influence. With Citizens united any one who voted there way could have there campaign paid for... But it is not bribery but free speech.

Obama tried to address drug prices

Based on his previous attempt to control insurance premium prices, "It will save the average family $2500 per year", he should stay the fuck away.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Profits. Yes!
Ripping the public off. NO!

Stock holders including many public employee unions want the companies they own to generate profits, shocking! /sarcasm

Why can't they charge what the market will bare? If you want to address the real problem you might want to ask congress why they won't allow Americans to purchase the drugs cheaper from Canada. Specifically why Dem's didn't fix that when passing Obamacare.

If you want to address the real problem you might want to ask congress why they won't allow Americans to purchase the drugs cheaper from Canada.

Because other countries basically steal our drugs.

But hang on, these companies are not owned by America. Novartis HQ is in Switzerland. Actually a lot of Pharma companies have HQ in Switzerland(tax reasons I have been told).

These companies have less lobbying power in these countries to be able to influence prices. In Europe each country negotiates the price of the drug for everyone, why? Because they are the largest buyer and equality law means that what the government says it will pay is the price for everyone...
There is talk that the EU might negotiate the price for all the countries, that will mean even bigger savings.

The truth is that the combined spend on R&D by the top 15 or so companies is $70billion worldwide. The US taxpayers alone 1.5 trillion on healthcare, private spending doubles that amount.

The total spend on Healthcare worldwide is 6.5 trillion..

So if you would be lucky to say Private R&D (which we round up to $100 billion) would make 1.5% of world healthcare spending. It is be cheaper for everyone when drugs are discovered by a public owned or charity organisation. The race between public and private to solve the main diseases is considered to be quite intense. If the public win the drug is cheap if private win drug is expensive, the way the trails work first to win has a lower bar than the ones behind.

It is be cheaper for everyone when drugs are discovered by a public owned or charity organization.

Why? The billion dollars it takes to bring the drug through the approval process doesn't magically shrink if a "public owned" organization spends the money.
Any examples of these cheap "public" drugs?

 

[Disir]

Yep. Often one company will take over smaller companies that have paid for the research and then try to make claim that it was their own research.

Often one company will take over smaller companies that have paid for the research

Buying smaller companies? Why is that allowed in America?
We need Bernie to put a stop to this, NOW!!!

It isn't a question of it being allowed. However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow. It's a problem with our current little trade agreement. I know........you aren't geared for these types of conversations.

However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow.

Why?
What about buying a patent?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines. What about it?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines.

A big company buys a small company.
Takes the work the small company has done and gets a patent.
How does that restrict access to affordable medicines?

What about buying a patent?

What about it?

Is it as bad as "patenting something that you didn't create"?

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research. The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it. That work has already been done. Sometimes the research etc. is one via a university. It's a circle jerk. It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

 

[Pete7469]

Obama tried to address drug prices

Based on his previous attempt to control insurance premium prices, "It will save the average family $2500 per year", he should stay the fuck away.

Agreed, the meat muppet fucks up everything he touches.

 

[Disir]

You guys need to start paying attention to TPP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Often one company will take over smaller companies that have paid for the research

Buying smaller companies? Why is that allowed in America?
We need Bernie to put a stop to this, NOW!!!

It isn't a question of it being allowed. However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow. It's a problem with our current little trade agreement. I know........you aren't geared for these types of conversations.

However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow.

Why?
What about buying a patent?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines. What about it?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines.

A big company buys a small company.
Takes the work the small company has done and gets a patent.
How does that restrict access to affordable medicines?

What about buying a patent?

What about it?

Is it as bad as "patenting something that you didn't create"?

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research. The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it. That work has already been done. Sometimes the research etc. is one via a university. It's a circle jerk. It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research.

If a small firm spends $500 million and can't afford to take the drug to completion without a larger company buying them, that doesn't mean the money wasn't spent.

The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it.

The small company gets the patent and gets bought or the small company does the work, gets bought and then the large company submits the patent, no difference in the end, so why do you care?

It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

Government regulations and delays make medication unaffordable.

 

[Disir]

It isn't a question of it being allowed. However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow. It's a problem with our current little trade agreement. I know........you aren't geared for these types of conversations.

However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow.

Why?
What about buying a patent?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines. What about it?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines.

A big company buys a small company.
Takes the work the small company has done and gets a patent.
How does that restrict access to affordable medicines?

What about buying a patent?

What about it?

Is it as bad as "patenting something that you didn't create"?

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research. The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it. That work has already been done. Sometimes the research etc. is one via a university. It's a circle jerk. It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research.

If a small firm spends $500 million and can't afford to take the drug to completion without a larger company buying them, that doesn't mean the money wasn't spent.

The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it.

The small company gets the patent and gets bought or the small company does the work, gets bought and then the large company submits the patent, no difference in the end, so why do you care?

It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

Government regulations and delays make medication unaffordable.

The drugs are completed. You aren't listening. It's intentional.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, patenting something that you didn't create blows chow.

Why?
What about buying a patent?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines. What about it?

Why? It restricts access to affordable medicines.

A big company buys a small company.
Takes the work the small company has done and gets a patent.
How does that restrict access to affordable medicines?

What about buying a patent?

What about it?

Is it as bad as "patenting something that you didn't create"?

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research. The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it. That work has already been done. Sometimes the research etc. is one via a university. It's a circle jerk. It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

It kills the argument that the price is high to pay for the research because...........the company didn't pay for the research.

If a small firm spends $500 million and can't afford to take the drug to completion without a larger company buying them, that doesn't mean the money wasn't spent.

The larger company doesn't get the patent as far as putting the work into it.

The small company gets the patent and gets bought or the small company does the work, gets bought and then the large company submits the patent, no difference in the end, so why do you care?

It ensures that medication is unaffordable.

Government regulations and delays make medication unaffordable.

The drugs are completed. You aren't listening. It's intentional.

Which drugs? Be more specific.

 

[BluesLegend]

I think you need to look at who owns these public pharma companies, I'm sure the teachers unions are quite happy with the profits.

So Teachers Unions are happy with jacking up the prices for sick kids. Have you one iota of proof?

You don't hear them complaining about how fat their pension plans are growing buying stock in the very corporations the left claims to hate.

 

[BluesLegend]

Blood sucking lawyers suing the crap out of the Pharmaceutical companies in class action lawsuits every chance they get driving up prices? Who's protecting the lawyers...yes Democrats.

 

[Dan Daly]

I laugh when people make out the NRA to be some 800lb gorilla that owns our government. The NRA are poor pikers in comparison to Big Pharma.

 

[boilermaker55]

Who has made big government. Corporations. They know that if their are regulations needed, and they are, they know they can purchase those in government.
Its a Catch-22. Get big money out of government.

The pharmaceutical industry defends the price spikes as a means of funding research to develop new drugs. But a close look at the finances of more than a dozen public drug companies illustrates research and development expenses are routinely smaller than company overheads, including marketing costs. And often after-tax profits still greatly exceed those R&D expenses that the companies say are so high.

Corporate America! What a joke.
The real reason U.S. drug prices are so high

Well...they need lots of money for marketing. You know...to buy big gov regulators and corrupt politicians. Big gov controlled capitalism is great for...big gov.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who has made big government. Corporations. They know that if their are regulations needed, and they are, they know they can purchase those in government.
Its a Catch-22. Get big money out of government.

The pharmaceutical industry defends the price spikes as a means of funding research to develop new drugs. But a close look at the finances of more than a dozen public drug companies illustrates research and development expenses are routinely smaller than company overheads, including marketing costs. And often after-tax profits still greatly exceed those R&D expenses that the companies say are so high.

Corporate America! What a joke.
The real reason U.S. drug prices are so high

Well...they need lots of money for marketing. You know...to buy big gov regulators and corrupt politicians. Big gov controlled capitalism is great for...big gov.

Get big money out of government.

Excellent idea! We can start by privatizing Social Security.
Then we can eliminate the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Education, and HUD, to start.
We'll be well on our way to getting big money out of government.