1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AP Poll: Drugs Costly for U.S. Families

Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, Feb 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    "Two popular steps that could have made prescription drugs more affordable were forbidden by the new law:

    - Letting Americans import drugs from Canada, Mexico and other countries, an idea supported by 65 percent of those polled for the AP.

    - Giving the government authority to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices, favored 65 percent."

    link
     
  2. FritzM

    FritzM Legend

    120
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    It costs several fortunes to bring a new drug to market. Take away the profit incentive for the drug companies, and there'll be no new drugs. So if we want cheap drugs, that's fine. We just can't expect any new, better ones.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    So your position is for the citizens of this nation continue to subsidize new drugs for the rest of the world, paying the research costs for all new drugs.
     
  4. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    OK, but much of the research is done with Federal grants at colleges, universities and research centers throughout the country. Drug companies generally enter toward the end of the research cycle.
     
  5. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    So we pay for the research as taxpayers, then because of the reasoning we pay higher prices than the rest of the world for the drugs that have been produced.
    Do these people have great lobbyists or what? :eek2: :grin:
     
  6. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    WRONG! By the pharmaceutical industries own financial reports, on average they spend 11% of revenue on R&D, which includes the FDA testing. They spend 39% on marketing. Even with the deep discounts that countries like Canada negotiate, they still make a considerable profit on the drugs, they're not selling them at a loss. Pfizer has made a 3000% profit just on Celebrex alone. It isn't a matter of the US subsidizing lower prices for other countries, it is the US being made the cash cow for the drug companies because their lobbyists have such power in Congress.
     
  7. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Want to know some personal numbers which give a clue as to the costs involved. I'll be very forthcoming here. I am an AIDS survivor. I first learned of my illness back in 1985 and luckily I have not had any severe illnesses. I'm very very lucky. But, the cost of my survival is not cheap. Thankfully I have had great insurance over the years which covers most of the cost. But in the past few years my copay has continued to escalate upwards. I have to take 11 different drugs daily, 21 pills total each and every day. The side effects of the anti-retrovirals causes me to have to take other drugs, which cause me to have to take others to counter their side effects, etc. It's not easy. But anyway, as to the cost, for a 90 day supply my copay is now $400. The insurance company, according to the information they supply, pays $5810, for a total cost of $6210 every 90 days. That is $69 PER DAY just for my drugs that keep me living a sort of normal life. Nobody can tell me it actually costs that much to develop and produce those drugs. Just look at the profits the drug companies are reporting! And to the unlucky people who have no insurance? I've had several friends die over the years simply because they couldn't afford the drugs and medical care. The state funded programs only have a limited supply, with far more people needing the care than they can handle.

    Here in the USA, which is supposed to be the richest nation in the world, yet thousands of people die each year simply because they can't afford medical care. That just isn't right.
     
  8. FritzM

    FritzM Legend

    120
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    3000% profit on Celebrex? Is that manufacturing costs versus price charged? With no consideration for recouping development costs? Celebrex is hardly a "life saving" medication. Don't buy any, rely on aspirin and ibuprofen; research now tends to say they work just as well anyway.

    As far as cheap prices in other countries, look to the federal government about that. Arm twisting for cheap AIDS drugs for Africa is one example. Do you expect these prices not to be subsidized by higher prices charged here?

    Not sure about preliminary drug research done in colleges and paid for by federal grants, sounds a bit specious.
     
  9. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    Clearly, you've never had a problem that a drug like celebrex targets and solves very well. The 3000% is profit after manufacturing, expensing of development and patent costs and marketing and advertising.



    The actual production cost is only a small fraction of the cost of the drugs. The drugs are manufactured in regional facilities and sold at a profit over direct costs. The US drug companies knew they weren't going to sell much product over in Africa at the US price schedule, so this works fine for them, they get variable costs covered (manufacturing costs) and a shave of profit to cover overhead. And they get people justifying the outrageous prices in the US by saying that it's needed to support discounted drugs overseas.



    Why does it sound specious? What do you think is done with all that money that ends up as grants from the National Institutes of Health (nih.gov) and others? NIH has enjoyed a multifold increase in funding over the last several years. NIH is involved in clinical trials, stem cell research and mapping the human genome, etc. Check out their website, they do some incredible work. :)
     
  10. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I should add another interesting tidbit of information. You know all the hype the drug companies and their cronies in congress keep spewing about "re-importing" drugs from Canada? Well, the drug companies themselves import almost all of their products to the USA. 90% of all the drugs are actually manufactured in plants in other countries, then imported to the USA. The drug companies moved their manufacturing operations overseas over the last two decades, with Ireland, Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium, and Spain being the biggest recipients of the workload. In the last couple of years it seems they're now moving even those operations to places like Maylasia, Philipines, India, and yes, even China. And they want us to believe we're in danger if we "import" their products from Canada? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page