The Cost of Drugs

[Sava]

As for non-profits and public entities producing drugs, why don't they do this now?

Some do. As for R&D... companies waste resources on drugs that will sell and that they can advertise for. Why do you think so much money was put into R&D of Viagra when there are many other deadly diseases out there that the money could have been spent on. I'm not opposed to for-profit companies entirely... but when companies spend millions on ad campaigns, I get concerned.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

Some do.

Specifics?

As for R&D... companies waste resources on drugs that will sell and that they can advertise for. Why do you think so much money was put into R&D of Viagra when there are many other deadly diseases out there that the money could have been spent on.

Does not Viagra enhance the lives of millions of people? Sure, if I could choose, I'd like to see a cure for cancer rather than Viagra, but obviously cancer is a tougher nut to crack, so to speak. I'd bet Viagra was just one of those drugs stumbled upon by people who were searching for cures to bigger problems, many drugs are tangential discoveries. Don't leftists typically advocate the greater good? That would mean research for the most common and deadly diseases short changing people with more rare conditions. That philosophy happens to coincide with supply and demand in this case.

I'm not opposed to for-profit companies entirely... but when companies spend millions on ad campaigns, I get concerned.

Advertising is one way companies create more revenue to obtain the resources for further development. If you made cars for a living, wouldn't you want people to know about your service?

[Sava]

Specifics?

ACL labratories in the Chicago area is one...

I'm not about to list all the non-profit companies. You are able to research yourself

[Sava]

Berz: You are misunderstanding me. I'm not opposing the use of advertising in business. It's wasting millions on such campaigns. I can't comment on your "leftist" comment. I don't know what your definition of a "leftist" is... and I certainly can't speak for anyone else other than myself.

Perhaps I wouldn't be as jaded if there weren't millions dying in Africa of AIDS. Pharm. companies have spent millions on lobbying the US government to shoot down a bill that would have allowed International companies to make generic AIDS drugs available to Africa. They are more concerned about their own profits than human life. And what really bothers me is when a blowhole like Bush proposes empty spending to help alleviate the AIDS epidemic in Africa as a ploy to make it seem like he and the party care about it.

My point is more a question of the morals and ethics of business rather than creating a political system. Profits are good, but not at the expense of human lives.

[Berzerker]

Berz: You are misunderstanding me. I'm not opposing the use of advertising in business. It's wasting millions on such campaigns.

If it really was a waste, I suspect they'd find better ways to spend resources.

I can't comment on your "leftist" comment. I don't know what your definition of a "leftist" is... and I certainly can't speak for anyone else other than myself.

Just a common retort I see from leftists here, the greater good.

Perhaps I wouldn't be as jaded if there weren't millions dying in Africa of AIDS.

How many decades have people been researching solutions to the common cold and cancer? I understand viruses are very difficult to combat, much less cure.

Pharm. companies have spent millions on lobbying the US government to shoot down a bill that would have allowed International companies to make generic AIDS drugs available to Africa. They are more concerned about their own profits than human life.

Do away with patent protections and we'll see just how much money company's pour into R&D when other companies can just walk in and take what they've been working for over the years.

And what really bothers me is when a blowhole like Bush proposes empty spending to help alleviate the AIDS epidemic in Africa as a ploy to make it seem like he and the party care about it.

Bush doesn't have the legal authority to do away with patent protections.

My point is more a question of the morals and ethics of business rather than creating a political system. Profits are good, but not at the expense of human lives.

I understand your concern, but your approach would only hurt more in the long run.

[Berzerker]

ACL labratories in the Chicago area is one...

I'm not about to list all the non-profit companies. You are able to research yourself

Yes, but that was your argument, not mine, not that I expect you to list all of them. How do these non-profits get money for R&D? What has ACL produced and how do they compare with a company like Merck?

[Sava]

Call me lazy, but your question requires too long of an answer and too much research for me to do.

[Berzerker]

No problem, but for profit companies produce much more to help people than non-profits.

[Sava]

but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement

[Ramo]

SO do you agree with:

"Maybe we should have drug price controls, but if we do, that should be after a full national debate and some action by Congress."

No. I don't think we should have drug price controls. I'd prefer that we shorten the length of patent protection considerably (i.e. to 10 or 15 years maximum). But short of that, I think that the state should be able to contract businesses (to whomover agrees if the original business doesn't) to use this intellectual property to produce low-cost drugs for the less wealthy.

Also, subsidies pay for very little (hardly none) of what goes into developing, manufactoring, marketing, and distributing drugs. Even the FDA would laugh at that comment.

I didn't say subsidies had anything to do with manufacturing, marketing, or distributing. But subsidies do play a huge part in biotech development.

Ramo, you say subsidies and enforced monopolies justify creating a "right" to their products.

To be more precise, the people have a right to the IP behind them.

Those forced monopolies are in the Constitution (patent protection),

That's nice, but I don't agree with everything in the Constitution (well, I do agree with the idea of IP, but I don't agree that Congress should be able to lengthen IP protections however the hell they want).

If people didn't have patent protection, then others could just wait for someone to create a new drug and then start producing it themselves at a lower cost since the original producer would need to charge more to make up the cost of R&D.

I accept the idea of IP, I just think that the implementation is totally unjust. IP is a form of coercion, so IMO is justified only insofar as it reduces coercion. Since it certainly does not do so, IP protection needs to be reigned in.

BTW, I'm suprised that you support IP. Since it's merely another form of state-sponsored coercion for the rich (albeit less objectionable than most other forms of corporate welfare).

[Berzerker]

Sava -

but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement

Agreed, I'd eliminate the policing powers of the FDA and let doctors and consumers decide if the risk of taking a new medicine is worthwhile. Private industry, like Consumer Reports and UL, would spring up to test drugs so people wouldn't be without information. But I don't want my taxdollars killing sick people by criminalising our freedom to make our own decisions.

Ramo -

To be more precise, the people have a right to the IP behind them.

Not sure what IP stands for, but I don't agree that if tobacco gets a subsidy, I then have a right to smoke tobacco for free. Eliminate the subsidy, not property rights.

That's nice, but I don't agree with everything in the Constitution (well, I do agree with the idea of IP, but I don't agree that Congress should be able to lengthen IP protections however the hell they want).

But until the Constitution is amended, Bush and Congress can't eliminate patent protections, nor should they even with an amendment. Btw, I believe patent production on medicine is already close to the 10-15 year max.

IP is a form of coercion, so IMO is justified only insofar as it reduces coercion. Since it certainly does not do so, IP protection needs to be reigned in.

It is reigned in, the principle, I believe, is to allow the inventor to at least recoup his effort, i.e., make enough money to cover R&D and make some money as profit.

BTW, I'm suprised that you support IP. Since it's merely another form of state-sponsored coercion for the rich (albeit less objectionable than most other forms of corporate welfare).

Corporate welfare is when politicians take my money and give it to a corporation. And poorer people can invent products, most goods were invented by people who weren't rich until they invented something of value. And I don't ascribe to your philosophy of reducing coercion for the sake of reducing coercion. If coercion is justified, I'm fine with it.

[Japher]

Agreed, I'd eliminate the policing powers of the FDA and let doctors and consumers decide if the risk of taking a new medicine is worthwhile. Private industry, like Consumer Reports and UL, would spring up to test drugs so people wouldn't be without information.

Not a good idea. FDA/MCA does a lot of good, and keeping this definitly to the advantage of the consumer, especially since a layman consumer does not seem to take an active interest in the manufacturing of the drug. There are private organizations that monitor the FDA. Consumer reports? Come on. Also, good pharm industry (I know the two companies have worked for) are still audited by, and required to abide by UL and CE standards.

So you know, life cycle of a drug is very short. A company is lucky to get 5-10 years of money earning years, not profit earning, on their patent. That is why there are companies like mine that delve in increasing these life cycles through drug delivery programs, or how the drug gets into your system.

But short of that, I think that the state should be able to contract businesses (to whomover agrees if the original business doesn't) to use this intellectual property to produce low-cost drugs for the less wealthy.

I think that is an excellent idea. Yet, I think there should be a kickback to the company that origionally had the idea.

[Ramo]

Not sure what IP stands for, but I don't agree that if tobacco gets a subsidy, I then have a right to smoke tobacco for free. Eliminate the subsidy, not property rights.

IP = intellectual property. And if the state gives money to a tobacco company for research, I believe the people have rights to that reseach.

But until the Constitution is amended, Bush and Congress can't eliminate patent protections, nor should they even with an amendment. Btw, I believe patent production on medicine is already close to the 10-15 year max.

The average patent life of drugs is about 15 years. I think that should be closer to a maximum, and the average should be considerable lower.

It is reigned in, the principle, I believe, is to allow the inventor to at least recoup his effort, i.e., make enough money to cover R&D and make some money as profit.

But what, exactly, is "some money?"

Corporate welfare is when politicians take my money and give it to a corporation.

Corporate welfare is when state power is used to force people to give up money to corporations. Which is precisely what IP does.

And poorer people can invent products, most goods were invented by people who weren't rich until they invented something of value.

Honestly how many biotech patents are created by poor people, relative to rich people nowadays?

If coercion is justified, I'm fine with it.

I thought you believed state coercion is absolutely wrong. Is social welfare ok? Are income taxes ok? I don't see the distinction except for who benefits from the coercion.

[Berzerker]

Japher -

Not a good idea. FDA/MCA does a lot of good, and keeping this definitly to the advantage of the consumer, especially since a layman consumer does not seem to take an active interest in the manufacturing of the drug.

Would you care to offer an estimate of how many people have died because of the FDA? Ever hear an FDA spokesman announce how ~50,000 people will be saved next year because a new drug has been approved? I have. That means 50,000 people died the year before because the FDA had not approved the drug. And 50,000 the year before, and so on. "We" the voters killed these people by outlawing their access to medicines that might have saved their lives.

There are private organizations that monitor the FDA. Consumer reports? Come on.

I said "like" consumer reports, i.e, private organisations that test products. Underwriters Laboratories test all sorts of products and you can be assured, if you see the UL label on a product, it has been tested.

Ramo -

And if the state gives money to a tobacco company for research, I believe the people have rights to that reseach.

Hmm...tough call, I'd agree to an extent. I don't like it when universities and corporations get our money to create products only to sell them to us, directly or indirectly, as if we had nothing to do with the process. But I'd prefer eliminating the subsidy rather than getting into constant fights over IP and rights via subsidy.

But what, exactly, is "some money?"

Whatever they can make during the patent protection period. If it takes 10 years to recoup R&D costs, another 5-7 years is long enough.

Corporate welfare is when state power is used to force people to give up money to corporations. Which is precisely what IP does.

Not the same thing. Corporate welfare is when a politician threatens to harm me to get my money - taxes - to enrich a corporation. That isn't analogous to protecting a corporation's IP.

Honestly how many biotech patents are created by poor people, relative to rich people nowadays?

Why does this matter? Taking a snapshot of history to ignore all of history is illogical.

I thought you believed state coercion is absolutely wrong.

How did you get that idea after our debates about the jail/death penalty, etc.?

Is social welfare ok?

You already know I oppose all forms of welfare.

Are income taxes ok?

And you know my position on this as well.

I don't see the distinction except for who benefits from the coercion.

That's the important part, the owner is the one who should benefit. Social welfare requires taking money from the rightful owners and giving it to others just as with corporate welfare. IP protection allows the owner - the inventor - time to benefit from their labor.

[Japher]

Berz...

Take a look at why the FDA exists and you will see why it is a good thing. Question: Do you ever think about what you put in your body? Is it contaminated? Does it contain a pesticide that will kill me or disable me? Will it actually do what the marketer says it will do? Does this hamburger contain that mad cow disease, and if so can it cross to humans? Is that shot they just gave made in a sterile environment, or did it just give me AIDS?

The FDA protects the right of the consumer when they are most vulnerable and when ppl are most likely to take advantage of them; when they are sick. If it were not for the FDA there would be many things we wouldn't know about, and yes, we wouldn"t have to wait a year to save 500,000 because in essence that drug would probably just kill them. The deaths that would occur because of lack of regulation would be far greater than the deaths that occur because of it.

That I am sure of.

UL does not test drug labeling, manufacturing practices, nor drug effects, do you want them to? UL tests a lot of things we use to make drugs, and they a very knowledgable about chemistry, mechanics, and electronics... I know I have had many meeting with those folks. Do you think they would be a good place to place FDA requirements? I am not taunting, I am concidering. I mean, alot of companies follow ISO standards to ensure good quality management, maybe something like that should exist to reduce FDA involvement, or to make the approval process quicker.


Another note: The FDA and their daughter Team Biologics are currently in the process of being more compliant with European standards of drug manufacturing, both commercial and clinical. Europe has higher standards for clinical production... This will raise the cost of drugs that wish to be sold Internationally. Just thought I'd point that out, another thing to complain about...