Socialized Medicine and Ungodly Expensive Drugs

[pknopp]

What did a flat screen TV cost in 2000? Are flat screen TV's more or less accessible to the average consumer now or then? All products when first introduced are available to those with money. Those people pay the majority of the recoup cost for the luxury of having access to that product first. It allows the company producing that product to gauge popularity and if mass production of that product would make any sense. Why would it be any different for drugs? They are essentially just a product.

If J&J develops a drug to do X but they have to be able to mass produce it and provide it at a cost that everyone can afford it in order to get FDA approval before they know if anyone will even really want it, what do you think the chances are they ever even start development on that drug? 0? A little less than that?

The Process and Costs of Drug Development (2022) | FTLOScience

Did you know that developing a single drug can cost over US$2 billion? We break down the process and costs of drug development in 2022.

ftloscience.com

"Bringing a new drug to market in 2022 costs US$2 billion across 14 years of development. This process includes drug discovery, pre-clinical and clinical trials, regulatory filings and post-marketing surveillance."


Who is fronting that money? You?

Nobody died because they couldn't initially afford a flat screen.

You, you get to live.

You, you go off and die because you only did flooring for living.

 

[pknopp]

Types of Neglected Tropical Diseases

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) comprise several diseases that have a range of effects, from extreme pain to permanent disability to death. Here are some examples: Ascariasis Caused by a parasitic roundworm called Ascaris lumbricoides, ascariasis is common in areas where sanitation and...

www.niaid.nih.gov

What Are the Neglected Tropical Diseases?

There are 21 neglected tropical diseases found in 150 countries worldwide—all of which disproportionately affect the poor.

www.verywellhealth.com

"The World Health Organization (WHO) formally recognizes at least 21 infections as NTDs, each of which has its own distinct causes, symptoms, and methods of transmission. The one thing they all have in common, however, is that they overwhelmingly affect the poor."

Seems a better use of research than erectile dysfunction.

 

[Couchpotato]

Nobody died because they couldn't initially afford a flat screen.

You, you get to live.

You, you go off and die because you only did flooring for living.

It's called an example everyone can relate to dumbass. The point still stands though. Unless there is a way for these companies to recoup the investment it requires to develop these drugs they wont be produced. I get it in your world rainbows and unicorn farts will fund all this but here in the real world that's just not the way it happens.

 

[Couchpotato]

Seems a better use of research than erectile dysfunction.

Thanks for making my point. And the drug for erectile dysfunction wasnt developed as an ED drug.

The History of Viagra and How it Changed the World

Back in 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sildenafil citrate as a drug that could be prescribed for erectile dysfunction. ED wasn’t

www.techsling.com

"Believe it or not, those who discovered Viagra weren’t even looking for it. The active ingredient in the drug, sildenafil, was developed for cardiovascular problems. It failed in that regard during clinical trials."

If you're going to run your mouth about a subject you should be at least nominally educated on it.

 

[Couchpotato]

Thanks for making my point. And the drug for erectile dysfunction wasnt developed as an ED drug.

The History of Viagra and How it Changed the World

Back in 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sildenafil citrate as a drug that could be prescribed for erectile dysfunction. ED wasn’t

www.techsling.com

"Believe it or not, those who discovered Viagra weren’t even looking for it. The active ingredient in the drug, sildenafil, was developed for cardiovascular problems. It failed in that regard during clinical trials."

If you're going to run your mouth about a subject you should be at least nominally educated on it.

pknopp

what's there to disagree with here?

 

[Toro]

Drugs are cheaper in Canada.

The downside is that cutting edge drugs are usually not available in Canada.

It usually takes 4-5 years before the cutting edge drugs in America are available in Canada.

 

[Couchpotato]

Drugs are cheaper in Canada.

The downside is that cutting edge drugs are usually not available in Canada.

It usually takes 4-5 years before the cutting edge drugs in America are available in Canada.

Wait so you mean the drug companies who dump huge sums of money into the development of these drugs dont do so as a charity? Shocking I tell you. Shocking.

 

[pknopp]

Wait so you mean the drug companies who dump huge sums of money into the development of these drugs dont do so as a charity? Shocking I tell you. Shocking.

Who is paying for all of this again?

How Your Tax Dollars Are Subsidizing Drug Companies

Millions of Americans are seeing the cost of their medications go up, but drug companies are getting two bites out of our pocketbook.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Couchpotato]

Who is paying for all of this again?

How Your Tax Dollars Are Subsidizing Drug Companies

Millions of Americans are seeing the cost of their medications go up, but drug companies are getting two bites out of our pocketbook.

www.americanprogress.org

I had no doubt the Government subsidized them. I never said it didn’t. That doesn’t change the economics.

 

[pknopp]

I had no doubt the Government subsidized them. I never said it didn’t. That doesn’t change the economics.

Of course it does. They want the taxpayers to fund the research but then price a large segment of the taxpayers out of the market.

 

[Couchpotato]

Of course it does. They want the taxpayers to fund the research but then price a large segment of the taxpayers out of the market.

Yeah Im sure they do. The Government funds all sorts of research. What's you point? The Government handed billions of dollars to Elon Musk for Tesla. Do you expect Elon to deliver a new EV to your driveway?

 

[frigidweirdo]

A good friend of mine is an elderly man with a couple different forms of cancer. One might say he is just playing out the string and he would be lucky to last another year.

His doctor advised him last week that there is a new drug available that "has shown great promise" in slowing the progress of the types of cancer he has, and could very well give him another year or two of life. The drug is a monthly injection and costs about $1,200 per shot. Because it is still "experimental," his insurance won't cover it.

He has the resources to buy this drug - his other drugs cost him several hundred dollars a month in co-pays - and he will get it filled as long as he can.

But what would happen under these circumstances in, for example, Canada, GB, or Sweden? Would they even have access to such a drug? Would it be paid for without question by the national health service?

I also wonder what would happen to a Medicaid patient in the U.S. Would it even be "on the table" as an option?

Anyone reading this have any insights?

Experimental drugs need people to experiment on. Someone, somewhere, is going to get them. The NHS tests drugs.

Clinical trials

Information about clinical trials and how to join one.

www.nhs.uk

Here's a website about clinical trials. Some people get it, some others don't, let's see who dies first.

Cancer patient’s recovery after experimental new drug

A clinical trials patient at The Christie had a new lease of life after having just the first dose of a new targeted cancer treatment.

www.christie.nhs.uk

"A clinical trials patient at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, who didn’t think she would make it to Christmas, is celebrating a new lease of life, having had a remarkable response to a new treatment that targets a specific gene that controls how cancer grows."

Someone got a drug, and the drug kind of works. He didn't have to pay for it, he didn't need to be RICH to live. He just needed to be the lucky one who got the drug.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah Im sure they do. The Government funds all sorts of research. What's you point? The Government handed billions of dollars to Elon Musk for Tesla. Do you expect Elon to deliver a new EV to your driveway?

I'm still wondering why the taxpayers have to pay the bills for one of the richest men in the world.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'm still wondering why the taxpayers have to pay the bills for one of the richest men in the world.

But you dnt expect Tesla to give you a free car right?

 

[odanny]

Of course it does. They want the taxpayers to fund the research but then price a large segment of the taxpayers out of the market.

Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

 

[odanny]

The Government handed billions of dollars to Elon Musk for Tesla.

The federal government didn't, the state of California did, around $3 billion, but states offer all kinds of financial incentives and tax breaks for companies to relocate or build there.

 

[pknopp]

But you dnt expect Tesla to give you a free car right?

I didn't say I expected free medicine either. I said it should be affordable for all.

 

[pknopp]

The federal government didn't, the state of California did, around $3 billion, but states offer all kinds of financial incentives and tax breaks for companies to relocate or build there.

Musk has received a ton of Federal dollars also.

 

[Couchpotato]

I didn't say I expected free medicine either. I said it should be affordable for all.

And who can afford a Tesla again? People with money. Poor people aren't buying them. Certainly, when they were first released that was the case. I don't think the average American was buying the original Tesla Roadster.

 

[Vastator]

A good friend of mine is an elderly man with a couple different forms of cancer. One might say he is just playing out the string and he would be lucky to last another year.

His doctor advised him last week that there is a new drug available that "has shown great promise" in slowing the progress of the types of cancer he has, and could very well give him another year or two of life. The drug is a monthly injection and costs about $1,200 per shot. Because it is still "experimental," his insurance won't cover it.

He has the resources to buy this drug - his other drugs cost him several hundred dollars a month in co-pays - and he will get it filled as long as he can.

But what would happen under these circumstances in, for example, Canada, GB, or Sweden? Would they even have access to such a drug? Would it be paid for without question by the national health service?

I also wonder what would happen to a Medicaid patient in the U.S. Would it even be "on the table" as an option?

Anyone reading this have any insights?