ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags health care issues , pharmaceutical companies

Reply
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:39 AM   #121
Senor_Pointy
Fruity
 
Senor_Pointy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sideways
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Or did one of the intermediate owners resell the distribution rights but NOT the patent rights? They paid $700M, a year later sold it for $55m? What did they get for the $650M ?
Impax purchased the entirety of CorePharma, which included manufacturing facilities and at least 25 drug lines for $700 million, then sold only Daraprim to Turing Pharmaceuticals for $55 million. The drug itself (pyramethimine) has been out of patent for almost 40 years, but no one had bothered to get approval for a generic version yet.
Senor_Pointy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:39 AM   #122
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,996
Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy View Post
Not at all. The market bore CorePharma's price hike just fine, and any other drug company could have gotten approval for a generic version and undercut them. Some people might think that kind of price increase is wrong, but it's basic capitalism. In some cases it can even keep a small drug that might be abandoned by a large pharma company on the market.

On the other hand, Turing hiked the price to where companies would be racing to undercut them with a generic, then put in place a system of closed distribution for the express purpose of stopping anyone else getting generic approval. That's the real issue here; nothing they purchased gave them the right to a monopoly, and they only reason they have one is because of regulatory abuse. It's textbook rent-seeking.
I'm talking more socially. It seems there is a component of people feeling a drug company has a moral or social obligation to provide affordable drugs and have modest profit. Since the people of the company chose to sell the drug to another company, there is a risk the next company intends to raise price above the previous modest profit.

Can we say it is immoral to sell to another company in this circumstance?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 08:41 AM   #123
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,286
Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy View Post
Not at all. The market bore CorePharma's price hike just fine, and any other drug company could have gotten approval for a generic version and undercut them. Some people might think that kind of price increase is wrong, but it's basic capitalism. In some cases it can even keep a small drug that might be abandoned by a large pharma company on the market.
I'm skeptical. Any price hike is suspicious. It only makes legitimate sense if costs have also increased all of a sudden.

Any company seeking to produce a generic version will have to make some investments upfront. What happens when they undercut the price gouger?
That price gouger can just go back to a reasonable price and still make a reasonable profit.
The newcomer, however, still needs to pay back the investors meaning he's in a worse position profit-wise. If may not make financial sense to start production if that is what one expects.

Best for the newcomer would be not to undercut the price gouger at all but to hope for "peaceful coexistence". Even if the newcomer gets only a small part of the sales, as long as the price is inflated several 100 times, he will still make more money than if he got all sales at a reasonable price.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:02 AM   #124
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
First of all, the drug is already generic. Secondly, the market is small - just 10,000 users worldwide. And lastly the FDA makes it long and difficult and expensive for a competitor to enter the market, and thus there is little incentive for another drug maker to do so when the company they are competing against can just lower the price back down to where it was before making it impossible for the newcomer to recover their investment.

About the only way I see of the government helping in this situation is overhauling the FDA process for approving new makers of generic drugs, otherwise this will continue to happen. There's really no reason it should be so long and expensive to get approval to market a drug that has been around for decades.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:13 AM   #125
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Perhaps human life is too important to be left to the mercy of market forces?
How dare you question the infallibility of the Free Market?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:13 AM   #126
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
First of all, the drug is already generic. Secondly, the market is small - just 10,000 users worldwide. And lastly the FDA makes it long and difficult and expensive for a competitor to enter the market,
Did you even bother read what is upthread ? They are blocking other to sell a generic which by all legal right everybody is supposed to be able to manufactur and sell since its patent is long finished.

They (current manufacturer) are actually using and abusing a loophole to stop everybody else manufacturing & selling the generic in the US.

So first at all, you are wrong. it is not the FDA the culprit.

Maybe you meant "research a NEW drug" but this is NOT what is talked about here.

Quote:
and thus there is little incentive for another drug maker to do so when the company they are competing against can just lower the price back down to where it was before making it impossible for the newcomer to recover their investment.
irrelevant we are speaking of a drug without patent.

Quote:
About the only way I see of the government helping in this situation is overhauling the FDA process for approving new makers of generic drugs, otherwise this will continue to happen. There's really no reason it should be so long and expensive to get approval to market a drug that has been around for decades.
No it is irrelevant as the drug is already is patent less.

What would be relevant is to STOP the loophole on the manufacturer putting obstacle on test of other generic manufacturer.

Last edited by Aepervius; 23rd September 2015 at 09:15 AM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:14 AM   #127
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm talking more socially. It seems there is a component of people feeling a drug company has a moral or social obligation to provide affordable drugs and have modest profit. Since the people of the company chose to sell the drug to another company, there is a risk the next company intends to raise price above the previous modest profit.

Can we say it is immoral to sell to another company in this circumstance?
The immorality is to jack up the price fully knowing you are abusing a loophole in a law to create a monopoly.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:15 AM   #128
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,253
Originally Posted by ThunderChunky View Post
Not too sure it is - but it is certainly not as clear cut as I thought it would be - thanks for the link.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:17 AM   #129
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,084
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
First of all, the drug is already generic.
....
It's only generic in the sense that it's out of patent. But no one else manufactures the same drug, and this company has taken steps to prevent anyone else from doing so.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 09:20 AM   #130
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
First of all, the drug is already generic. Secondly, the market is small - just 10,000 users worldwide. And lastly the FDA makes it long and difficult and expensive for a competitor to enter the market, and thus there is little incentive for another drug maker to do so when the company they are competing against can just lower the price back down to where it was before making it impossible for the newcomer to recover their investment.

About the only way I see of the government helping in this situation is overhauling the FDA process for approving new makers of generic drugs, otherwise this will continue to happen. There's really no reason it should be so long and expensive to get approval to market a drug that has been around for decades.
There is another path. Drugs with few "customers" can get orphan status - the profits are artificially boosted by government supplements, tax abatements, or grants. This is already a mechanism in play, although a company has to apply.

http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/Devel...on/default.htm

Last edited by marplots; 23rd September 2015 at 09:21 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 10:44 AM   #131
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
But all this could become a little more international with TTIP.

Never heard of it? Few have. Here's a commentary from The Independent:

TTIP
Holy ******
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 11:08 AM   #132
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,614
Didn't South Park already do this?

"The found a cure for AIDS! The cure is $180,000 of cold hard cash injected directly into the veins."
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 23rd September 2015 at 11:14 AM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 12:05 PM   #133
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,996
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The immorality is to jack up the price fully knowing you are abusing a loophole in a law to create a monopoly.
What about the people who sell the drug to the price jackers if they have an expectation it will happen?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 12:19 PM   #134
asydhouse
Master Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 2,368
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Some people make medicine for profit.

Other people complain about how evil the first people are.

The complainers never seem to get around to making medicine for charity.

If you have a problem with the world, change yourself.


Are you serious?

Following your prescription, Britain would own North America, and you'd be living in a social democracy instead of the Land of Apologists for Naked Profiteering and ******** Rationalisations!

I'm sure you'd love that!

I heard what the prick said about selling a bicycle at too low a cost and upping the price. A facile and false analogy.

Why do you feel impelled to defend every stupid bit of meanness crapped out by such people? I can respect a conservative impulse to explain the world in rational and reasonable terms, but defending this is just partisan insanity.

The guy is a disgusting twat, and that's all there is to it!
__________________
asydhouse art website http://www.asydhouse.co.uk/asydhouse...Syd_house.html
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:18 PM   #135
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,232
Some more information on why restricting supply prevents generics being approved.

It also appears he has only bought the marketing rights. The drug will still be made by the original company.

Quote:
Dr Williamson says Turing has bought the marketing rights to the compound that was developed for Daraprim.

This means that any creation of a generic version of the drug would need to be done with the approval of Turing.

"You have to prove that your medicine is equivalent to the active compound that's present in the drug," she said.

"To do that, you have to make that drug undergo a clinical trial and you need to acquire the original medicine.

"If the person who owns the supply of that doesn't allow you to get enough of the medicine to complete the clinical try, you can't prove that your generic drug is good enough."

At the moment, the price hike is only affecting consumers and patients in the United States.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-2...y-4000/6801326
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:32 PM   #136
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
This should be fun if someone brings it up in all these interminable presidental hopeful debates.
Love ya, TragicMonkey! You're a friggin genius! Let the popcorn eating commence!

Fer realz, though. Since there is only a single drug for this rather devastating disease, couldn't it technically be considered a monopoly since they have a corner on that market?

Now, understandably, the drug should be sold, even if it is a monopoly, but couldn't they restrict the price of said monopoly?
__________________
Lowpro: Food is also a little more important than guns; you can't eat a gun.

(\ (\
( '_' )
o_(")(")
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:39 PM   #137
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Did you even bother read what is upthread ? They are blocking other to sell a generic which by all legal right everybody is supposed to be able to manufactur and sell since its patent is long finished.

They (current manufacturer) are actually using and abusing a loophole to stop everybody else manufacturing & selling the generic in the US.

So first at all, you are wrong. it is not the FDA the culprit.

Maybe you meant "research a NEW drug" but this is NOT what is talked about here.
Upthread you wrote: "But due to the FDA 2008 REMS loophole for drug which have only 1 manufacturer, they can utterly block any trial"

How is the FDA not the culprit? It's their regulation.



Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
irrelevant we are speaking of a drug without patent.
How does it being off patent make that irrelevant?


Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
No it is irrelevant as the drug is already is patent less.

What would be relevant is to STOP the loophole on the manufacturer putting obstacle on test of other generic manufacturer.
Your own post upthread said it was an FDA reg that allows them to do this, so the FDA can fix it with the stroke of a pen.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 07:44 PM   #138
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by asydhouse View Post
Are you serious?

Following your prescription, Britain would own North America, and you'd be living in a social democracy instead of the Land of Apologists for Naked Profiteering and ******** Rationalisations!

I'm sure you'd love that!

I heard what the prick said about selling a bicycle at too low a cost and upping the price. A facile and false analogy.

Why do you feel impelled to defend every stupid bit of meanness crapped out by such people? I can respect a conservative impulse to explain the world in rational and reasonable terms, but defending this is just partisan insanity.

The guy is a disgusting twat, and that's all there is to it!
Dear British Person:

Can you please, please, PLEASE, petition your local magistrate or whatever it is you call your parliamentarian-type person to allow actual rational Americans to freely move to your country? Yeah, rare as we are, we actually do exist.....

Course, the problem with that, is it would leave America to be run by a bunch of Randian idiots, forming a terrible dystopian land full of nuclear waste and warheads to be fired upon every square inch of the planet at a moment's notice.....so.....maybe I should just stay put and help to vote these morons DOWN!
__________________
Lowpro: Food is also a little more important than guns; you can't eat a gun.

(\ (\
( '_' )
o_(")(")
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 05:14 AM   #139
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Upthread you wrote: "But due to the FDA 2008 REMS loophole for drug which have only 1 manufacturer, they can utterly block any trial"

How is the FDA not the culprit? It's their regulation.
So how do you suggest verifying that the supposedly inactive components of the pills have no effect with out testing? What is your proposed change to the regulation?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 05:32 AM   #140
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,456
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So how do you suggest verifying that the supposedly inactive components of the pills have no effect with out testing? What is your proposed change to the regulation?
What they are saying, and I have yet to see evidence, is that the brand name drug companies are controlling their supply so tightly that the generic companies cannot get samples for the equivalence test that the FDA requires. The problem is not that such an equivalence test exists.
ThunderChunky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 05:35 AM   #141
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by ThunderChunky View Post
What they are saying, and I have yet to see evidence, is that the brand name drug companies are controlling their supply so tightly that the generic companies cannot get samples for the equivalence test that the FDA requires. The problem is not that such an equivalence test exists.
Wildcat blames the FDA for the regulation so he should provide a suggestion on how to change it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 09:32 AM   #142
Senor_Pointy
Fruity
 
Senor_Pointy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sideways
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Wildcat blames the FDA for the regulation so he should provide a suggestion on how to change it.
I can think of an easy one. Require the manufacturer of the brand versions of off patent drugs to sell generic companies a sufficient quantity for a bioequavalence study.
Senor_Pointy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2015, 06:53 AM   #143
Senex
Philosopher
 
Senex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,603
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Didn't South Park already do this?

"The found a cure for AIDS! The cure is $180,000 of cold hard cash injected directly into the veins."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks South Park has much to teach.
Senex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2015, 08:08 PM   #144
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,307
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I think I need a Libertarian/Objectivist to explain this to me. I'm sure it's moral... somehow or other.
FDA is dragging ass approving anyone but this company making this combo of out-of-patent drugs?
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2015, 08:58 PM   #145
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,257
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No this is the genius of libertarian health care. They realize that a pill being sold for a $13 really has a value much higher than that and move to correct it. They know that they can charge more because they have a monopoly on life saving medication and thus will exploit it. This should be held up as a benefit of our wonderful health care system. Now the hedge funds will have enough money to research other drugs that they can buy and jack up the price on.
No, its exactly what patent trolls do
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2015, 03:00 AM   #146
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,477
Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy View Post
Very little? Impax, the company that sold the marketing rights for Daraprim to Turing, acquired them last year in a $700 million acquisition of CorePharma, both companies focused on manufacturing and marketing of generics. CorePharma acquired the rights to market it in 2010 from GlaxoSmithKline, when it was priced at $1/pill, with yearly sales of only $667,000. By 2014, CorePharma had raised the price to $13/pill, with yearly sales of $9.9 million.

So my guess is that Impax was content to get out because they were offered $55 million for a tiny product line they bought for a fraction of that. The hefty sales increase their predecessor created by raising the price probably also made it more attractive for competition from generics, which would drive it closer to its 2010 value.

On the other hand, Turing's antics have made it an incredible target for generics. Which is why they moved to closed distribution to keep any other company from doing the necessary bioequivalency studies to get a generic approved.
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
This product seems to be important world wide, not just for the US. Do the prices apply globally? I would assume so.
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
No, their rights are only protected in America, there are generics being sold in other countries already.
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
So instead of paying $300,000, all you have to do is drive to Canada and buy a generic?
The In the pipeline blog is good on this. As far as I understand, it is the only formulation approved in the US, and the closed distribution syustem (according to a screenshot of a Turing presentation (since removed) but captured in this article on seeking alpha (
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2523...-for-investors
) would make it illegal for a competitor to get hold of the drug to try to do a bioequivalence study so that its monopoly position could be preserved.

Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy View Post
Impax purchased the entirety of CorePharma, which included manufacturing facilities and at least 25 drug lines for $700 million, then sold only Daraprim to Turing Pharmaceuticals for $55 million. The drug itself (pyramethimine) has been out of patent for almost 40 years, but no one had bothered to get approval for a generic version yet.
Shkreli is facing criminal prosecution so ti could get interesting...
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2015, 03:18 AM   #147
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,232
Manic-Depression BiPolar?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2015, 04:20 AM   #148
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
No, its exactly what patent trolls do
Yes more people who are smart enough to look for how to exploit the loopholes.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2015, 05:52 AM   #149
ArmillarySphere
Muse
 
ArmillarySphere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes more people who are smart enough to look for how to exploit the loopholes.
And sufficiently sociopathic to want to.
ArmillarySphere is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:08 AM   #150
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,355
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Perhaps human life is too important to be left to the mercy of market forces?
Mine is.

I'm unsure about the rest of you.
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:09 AM   #151
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Perhaps human life is too important to be left to the mercy of market forces?

I think the current mantra is that market forces are far too important to be dictated to by the mere loss of human life.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:22 AM   #152
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,456
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I think the current mantra is that market forces are far too important to be dictated to by the mere loss of human life.
At least the pharm industry actually does things to directly save lives, unlike the next version of angry birds or the newest wallstreet financial instrument. Making pharm less profitable would probably kill more people than it would save.
ThunderChunky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:32 AM   #153
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,996
This is a good example of how government regulation unfairly protects the existing players. First step to fixing this is scrapping intellectual property, fds mandatory requirements, and the system of corporate charter.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:38 AM   #154
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by ThunderChunky View Post
At least the pharm industry actually does things to directly save lives, unlike the next version of angry birds or the newest wallstreet financial instrument. Making pharm less profitable would probably kill more people than it would save.
They have those huge marketing budgets they need to recoup and all. Vital stuff for public health. How else are you supposed to know which drugs you need to ask(tell) your doctor to prescribe to you?

Does this result in life saving treatments or more slightly different boner pills?

It certainly does not do a lot to help sufficiently rare diseases. Kind of like why they don't care much about looking for new antibiotics. They would end up being prescribed to so few patients because they would be held in reserve for so long that it just doesn't make sense to develop them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:38 AM   #155
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This is a good example of how government regulation unfairly protects the existing players. First step to fixing this is scrapping intellectual property, fds mandatory requirements, and the system of corporate charter.
Utter nonsense. Did you hear the CEO? He said they raised they price because they thought it was to cheap.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:46 AM   #156
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This is a good example of how government regulation unfairly protects the existing players. First step to fixing this is scrapping intellectual property, fds mandatory requirements, and the system of corporate charter.
So there is no protection to the initial developers of a drug and no system of checking the effecacy of generic version of it? Why would people develop drugs when people can make knock offs right away, and how would anyone know which knock offs are effective and which have been compounded with other things that inhibit the function of the drug?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 06:56 AM   #157
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,231
Originally Posted by ThunderChunky View Post
At least the pharm industry actually does things to directly save lives, unlike the next version of angry birds or the newest wallstreet financial instrument. Making pharm less profitable would probably kill more people than it would save.
Yes, but the pharm industry had already designed the drug and was already selling it at a profit.
This was a hedge fun manager hiking up the price beyond al reasonable profit purely to get rich.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 07:10 AM   #158
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,996
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Utter nonsense. Did you hear the CEO? He said they raised they price because they thought it was to cheap.
And other things prevent barriers to entry after price hikes such as patent law.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 09:36 AM   #159
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,477
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This is a good example of how government regulation unfairly protects the existing players. First step to fixing this is scrapping intellectual property, fds mandatory requirements, and the system of corporate charter.
Thalidomide. Possibly the FDA's finest hour.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 09:45 AM   #160
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,456
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
They have those huge marketing budgets they need to recoup and all. Vital stuff for public health. How else are you supposed to know which drugs you need to ask(tell) your doctor to prescribe to you?

Does this result in life saving treatments or more slightly different boner pills?

It certainly does not do a lot to help sufficiently rare diseases. Kind of like why they don't care much about looking for new antibiotics. They would end up being prescribed to so few patients because they would be held in reserve for so long that it just doesn't make sense to develop them.
Marketing pays for itself and then some, otherwise you wouldn't do it so it's not a net expense. If anything, marketing allows for more money to be spent on R&D because it increases profits. Viagra's boner effect was found by accident, it was never made on purpose. Rare diseases are tough, but reducing the pharm industry profits is not going to help at all. What has been working well are the orphan drug regulations, which increase the the pharm industry profits. Turns out more profit means more life saving drugs. A lot of investment has been made into new antibiotics. A new antibiotic would be very profitable. It's not easy work to find the effective drugs to kill bacteria without harmful side effects.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, but the pharm industry had already designed the drug and was already selling it at a profit.
This was a hedge fun manager hiking up the price beyond al reasonable profit purely to get rich.
Yeah, but no one is arguing this particular incident is the free market at work. These shenanigans actually hurt the industry.
ThunderChunky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.