Ban on re-imported drugs is price fixing by government

[shanek]

So, it's legal to buy a certain medicine from the US, but it's illegal to purchase that exact same medicine from overseas for much cheaper. And this makes sense, why?

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=651

The federal ban on re-imported prescription drugs has turned ailing senior citizens into criminals and dramatically inflated the cost of medicine, says the Libertarian Party, which is supporting legislation that would overturn the policy.

"This is price-fixing by the federal government, plain and simple," said Joseph Seehusen, Libertarian Party executive director. "In an attempt to further enrich the pharmaceutical industry, politicians are gouging senior citizens and interfering with every American's right to buy products from wherever they choose."

Spurred by growing anger over skyrocketing drug prices, the U.S. House took a step toward overturning the ban in July, when it passed a bill that would allow drugs to be re-imported from Canada and 25 other nations.

But the Senate refused to adopt that legislation, and this week a House-Senate conference committee is set to decide whether to include that language in its $400 billion prescription drug bill.

The pharmaceutical industry and the FDA have launched a campaign against the bill, arguing that re-importation could bring unsafe medicines into the United States.

But Libertarians say the safety argument is just a scare tactic.

"Pharmaceutical companies disingenuously claim to want to 'protect' people from the drugs that they themselves produced," Seehusen said. "The truth is that this industry is far more worried about protecting its government-protected profits than it is about protecting public health."

The real issue is economics, not safety, said Seehusen, who pointed out that senior citizens are paying up to six times more for drugs in the United States. The breast cancer drug Tamoxifen costs $60 in Munich but $360 in the United States, for example.

"By outlawing these drugs, the government is simply propping up prices for its corporate clients and gouging senior citizens in the process," he said.

That's why Libertarians support overturning the ban on re-imported drugs.

"The free-market is the best prescription for reducing health-care costs," Seehusen said. "It's time to decriminalize prescription drugs, and protect senior citizens from the government."

[specious_reasons]

Hmmm... I know Canada's drug prices are cheaper because the price is set by the government. Is that also the case in Germany, too?

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
So, it's legal to buy a certain medicine from the US, but it's
illegal to purchase that exact same medicine from overseas
for much cheaper. And this makes sense, why?

Sigh. So the powers that be can make a ton of money.
My insurance company had a plan where by the most
expensive drug store turned out to be cheeper for me
to buy the drugs from. Well, I found an online drug store
that was under the plan and lowered both our costs.
Silly me. They amended the plan so I cannot do so and
raised the rates. That's just the way things are these days.

[sorgoth]

That's why I'm not getting insurance.
Sometimes, it just isn't worth it.

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek

So, it's legal to buy a certain medicine from the US, but it's illegal to purchase that exact same medicine from overseas for much cheaper. And this makes sense, why?


I think you must first answer the question, why is the medicine cheaper overseas? While you're at it, you can also tell me why gas is so much cheaper outside of California. :mad:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by dsm


I think you must first answer the question, why is the medicine cheaper overseas? While you're at it, you can also tell me why gas is so much cheaper outside of California. :mad:

The latter is quiet simple, taxes and regulation. Aside from the 49 cent tax, California gasoline is the most refined in America (dare I say the world?) Which costs more to produce.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by sorgoth
That's why I'm not getting insurance.
Sometimes, it just isn't worth it.

Then oops!
You appendix explodes $20,000 out of pocket.
Then oops!
An automobile accident happens $40,000 out of pocket.
Then oops!
You suddenly realize $300 a month for a single policy ain't so bad after all.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by dsm
I think you must first answer the question, why is the medicine
cheaper overseas? While you're at it, you can also tell me why
gas is so much cheaper outside of California. :mad:

Well I can answer the former. The united states has no fraud control.
Neither the private insurers, nor surpringly does the federal goverment
bother with the problem. Take a look at this: Licensed To Steal (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0693c.asp)

Opps. My error. Here's the book on amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813368103/ref=lib_dp_TT01/102-0897250-9336108?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=5#reader-link) Read the introduction.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Well I can answer the former. The united states has no fraud control. Neither the private insurers, nor surpringly does the federal goverment bother with the problem. Take a look at this: Licensed To Steal (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0693c.asp)

Opps. My error. Here's the book on amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813368103/ref=lib_dp_TT01/102-0897250-9336108?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=5#reader-link) Read the introduction.


How does fraud apply to the drug industry exactly? The only way I can think of is because it is lucrative to sell fake, cheap drugs in a market where real drug costs are very high. If the drug makers sold their drugs more cheaply (which they seem able to do in other countries), then the fake drug market would melt away.

True? :confused:

[WildCat]

Drug prices are high in the US because other countries fix the price, so they make up for it by overcharging US consumers. The pharmaceutical companies agree to sell the drugs to countries who fix the price because they fear said countries will simply manufacture the drugs themselves (violating patents in the process) if they don't.

This worked well when most people's insurance companies paid for the drugs, but as they became more and more expensive many insurance companies dropped drug coverage, and suddenly consumers realized they were getting ripped off.

What's especially egregious is that many drugs are in whole or part developed in public universities, the professor then patents the drug for himself (or w/ a drug company that helped fund it) when it should be owned by the public who paid for much of the research in the first place.

[EvilYeti]

As much as Shanek would love to blame all this on the Gummint, the truth is much more complicated.

As Wildcat stated, foreign countries fix the price of imported drugs, so the domestic companies make up for that by gouging Americans. International patents also expire sooner, many of the "cheap" drugs are simply generic versions. In fact, pretty much all you can buy in places like Tijuanna are generic copies of domestic drugs.

This isn't a question of free-markets. If the Libertarians were really interested in promoting them, they would be lobbying for either patent reform or an import tax on drugs, so US companies could fairly compete. Its not a free market if we have to play by rules they don't! As usual all the Libs. are interested in is a free lunch.

Of course we could change the patent laws or implement our own price fixing, which would lower prices, but that would drastically lower the drug companies profits. Less incentive on return, less new drugs are developed.

So we can either have lots of new, expensive drugs or lots of cheap, old drugs. There is really no way around that. If the new, expensive drugs save your life, I think you'll agree that whatever you paid was a bargain.

Without the incentive to make a profit no one except public institutions are going to bother with drug research.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If the Libertarians were really interested in promoting them, they would be lobbying for either patent reform

We are.

As usual all the Libs. are interested in is a free lunch.

You show your ignorance again. One of the cries of Libertarianism (from Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) is TANSTAAFL, which means There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Once again, you're showing yourself as just a troll who has no clue about what Libertarianism really stands for.

But it's not really the patents that are causing such high prices anyway; it's the extraordinarily high cost of regulatory compliance. It costs literally hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars after a drug is developed to get it through all the regulations to the market.

If you economize the situation, you can have new AND cheaper drugs.

[Thanz]

I am not sure what affect this has on the pricing, but a number of medications that are prescription only in the US are available over the counter in Canada. I am specifically thinking of things like allergy medications like Claritin. I don't know what the current situation is for specific drugs, but a recent visitor to my brother, up from Boston, has some bad allergies and forgot her medication. When they took her to the drugstore, she was astounded at the number of medications that were available her OTC that were only prescription back in Boston.

Could it be that some drug manufacturers keep a drug prescription, as it will be covered under more insurance plans and they can jack the price up more?

The trade off is, of course, a larger market for OTC. So I am not sure which way this one goes.

Thoughts?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Thanz

Could it be that some drug manufacturers keep a drug prescription, as it will be covered under more insurance plans and they can jack the price up more?

You can buy Claritin OTC now, its still fairly expensive, but generic brands are starting to come out for cheaper.

The trade off is, of course, a larger market for OTC. So I am not sure which way this one goes.

Thoughts?

I think you are correct about the insurance, which doesnt cover OTC drugs. Also I think once a drug is OTC anyone can make a generic version, assuming they can figure out how to produce it. Its clearly in the drug companies best interests to keep their drugs prescription only.

Funny how the Libertarians assume private industry will take less advantage of under-regulation than over-regulation.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

I think you are correct about the insurance, which doesnt cover OTC drugs. Also I think once a drug is OTC anyone can make a generic version, assuming they can figure out how to produce it. Its clearly in the drug companies best interests to keep their drugs prescription only.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada the patent on a drug is time related, regardless of whether it is prescription or OTC. So, we had Claritin for some time OTC before generic versions started coming out (just recently).

Also, the generic drug makers don't need much to figure out how to make it - they just look at the patent.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Thanz

I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada the patent on a drug is time related, regardless of whether it is prescription or OTC. So, we had Claritin for some time OTC before generic versions started coming out (just recently).

I'm going to have to research this more, as I'm not sure how the patents on drugs work domesticaly.

Also, the generic drug makers don't need much to figure out how to make it - they just look at the patent.
I should have said "figure out how to manufacture it more cheaply".

[Thanz]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

I should have said "figure out how to manufacture it more cheaply".
They don't even need to do that. The big costs of drugs are the R&D costs. Actual manufacture isn't that expensive, but drug companies have to charge a lot before their patent runs out to recoup the money spent developing ythe drug. Generics just ride on the coattails of the other companies.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Also I think once a drug is OTC anyone can make a generic version, assuming they can figure out how to produce it. Its clearly in the drug companies best interests to keep their drugs prescription only.

More of your bull$#!7. There are generic prescription drugs, too. It has to do with when the patent runs out, not whether or not it's prescription.

Funny how the Libertarians assume private industry will take less advantage of under-regulation than over-regulation.

Funny how you still don't have a f*cking clue what you're talking about...

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I should have said "figure out how to manufacture it more cheaply".

They don't have to manufacture it more cheaply. They just don't have the R&D and advertising expenses of the name-brand drugs.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


They don't have to manufacture it more cheaply. They just don't have the R&D and advertising expenses of the name-brand drugs.

Than what incentive is there to R&D new drugs in the first place?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Than what incentive is there to R&D new drugs in the first place?
Am I on everyone's ignore list?

First, shanek makes the same point I do. Then, in response, Yeti asks why when I said in my other post that they charge a lot before the patent runs out. If you come up with a great new drug, you can charge a heck of a lot and reap the monopoly profits that the patent gives you. Even after the patent runs out, you will still make a lot of money on the brand name you create during the patent. You can buy generic tylenol anywhere. But tylenol, even after the poison scare, is still a very strong brand.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Thanz

Am I on everyone's ignore list?

First, shanek makes the same point I do. Then, in response, Yeti asks why when I said in my other post that they charge a lot before the patent runs out. If you come up with a great new drug, you can charge a heck of a lot and reap the monopoly profits that the patent gives you. Even after the patent runs out, you will still make a lot of money on the brand name you create during the patent. You can buy generic tylenol anywhere. But tylenol, even after the poison scare, is still a very strong brand.
I'm not ignoring or disagreeing with you Thanz :rub: All better?

I am under the impression that Shanek is opposed to patents, so I was asking him in the absense of any regulatory control over the manufacture of drugs what incentive there would be to R&D new ones?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Than what incentive is there to R&D new drugs in the first place?

The period where you have exclusive sales because of the patent.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
First, shanek makes the same point I do.

My apologies. I post linearly, as I read the thread, and hadn't read your reply when I made mine. It happens.

Even after the patent runs out, you will still make a lot of money on the brand name you create during the patent. You can buy generic tylenol anywhere. But tylenol, even after the poison scare, is still a very strong brand.

This is also a good point. I'd wager that Bayer sells more aspirin than any other aspirin.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I am under the impression that Shanek is opposed to patents, so I was asking him in the absense of any regulatory control over the manufacture of drugs what incentive there would be to R&D new ones?

I'm not against a patent-like system; but what we have today is completely overblown. I think the best thing is to deal with it as a trade secret issue, though.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm not against a patent-like system; but what we have today is completely overblown. I think the best thing is to deal with it as a trade secret issue, though.

But that's not what the link you posted is pushing.

The LP is claiming this is a free market issue, but it really isn't as the foreign markets are cheating. They extort money from the pharm industry which then has to be made up in the domestic market. They also are allowed to produce generic drugs prior to U.S. companies.

If this really was a free market issue the LP would be petioning foreign governments to lift their price caps and enforce U.S. patent law. Why is everything the always our Gummints fault? Shouldn't the Libs. hate those damn Euro socalists more?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
But that's not what the link you posted is pushing.

Where is it written that I have to agree 100% with everything every linked article I reference claims?

The LP is claiming this is a free market issue, but it really isn't as the foreign markets are cheating.

That's hardly the fault of the American citizens who want to purchase the exact same medicines they get here from foreign suppliers. So in that, yes, it's a free market issue. We're not responsible for what other governments do; we have a right to pursue the best products at the cheapest prices.

They extort money from the pharm industry which then has to be made up in the domestic market. They also are allowed to produce generic drugs prior to U.S. companies.

And if the barriers were taken down this system would become unsustainable and would therefore be forced into a more equitable scenario.

If this really was a free market issue the LP would be petioning foreign governments to lift their price caps and enforce U.S. patent law.

Except that the LP is an American political party dedicated to changing American policy. There are other parties in other countries similar to the LP in America, and this is exactly what they're trying to do.

[reprise]

In Australia, the drug companies do not determine which of their products are placed on what schedule - that is determined by the government.

Interestingly, our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is one of the issues which the US wants to put on the table during the upcoming free trade agreement talks. I can't imagine any Australian politician would be willing to commit political suicide by seriously considering scrapping the PBS (this is a system which caps the price to the consumer of a wide range of commonly used prescription medicines - the government negotiates a price with the pharmaceutical manufacturers and pays the difference between this price and what is paid by the consumer).

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by reprise
...the government negotiates a price with the pharmaceutical manufacturers and pays the difference between this price and what is paid by the consumer).

You are kidding me! So you are saying imported drugs are cheap because the foreign taxpayers are paying for most of them? Why don't the other countries shut down drug exports? I would be LIVID about that!

I love this, the Libertarian party is defending the right of Americans to defraud foreign taxpayers.

More Libertarian lunch stealing. Make sure you watch your wallet around these guys!

[reprise]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You are kidding me! So you are saying imported drugs are cheap because the foreign taxpayers are paying for most of them? Why don't the other countries shut down drug exports? I would be LIVID about that!

I love this, the Libertarian party is defending the right of Americans to defraud foreign taxpayers.

More Libertarian lunch stealing. Make sure you watch your wallet around these guys!

It's actually the US pharmaceutical manufacturers who want us to dismantle our PBS so that they can charge more for their product here. In order for their brand-name product to be made available under the PBS, there must be a demonstrable advantage in prescribing it rather than an alternative brand of the same medication - in essence, in order to get their product into the Australian prescription medicine market as a subsidised (by the Australian taxpayer) product, US pharmaceutical companies have to keep their prices in line with those of other suppliers of similar products.

As a low income earner, I pay $AUD 3.70 for a PBS prescription. Someone not on a low income would pay a maximum of around $AUD 24.00 for that same prescription. I can get two asthma reliever puffers or 4 months supply of oral contraceptives on a single prescription (this is why Australians are stunned at the price people pay for basic medication in the US). Apart from my contribution, the rest is paid for directly by my government and indirectly by the share-holders of the pharmaceutical company which has kept the price of its product lower here than elsewhere in the world in order to get that product on the PBS list.

Doctors do have the option of specifying that only the brand-name medication can be dispensed on the prescription, and if a person's medical condition is such that only a particular brand of a specific drug is appropriate for treatment of their condition then authority can be given for it to be dispensed at the reduced price, but as the PBS is the scheme under which most Australians obtain their basic medications, suppliers who are not cost competitive have access to an extremely limited market.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm not against a patent-like system; but what we have today is completely overblown. I think the best thing is to deal with it as a trade secret issue, though.
Please expand on this. What sort of trade secret system do you envisage?

I would think that medicines may be easier to reverse engineer than other products. They are required to print how much of the active ingredient is in the product on the label, and also what the non-active ingredients are. If a competitor has this information, wouldn't it be rather easy to duplicate? Bear in mind that I have no chemistry background, so I could be completely off base.

This is not something like Coca Cola, the formula for which is probably the best kept trade secret in the world. Taste, etc. is irrelevant for a drug - you just need to know what the active ingredient is and how much to put in. Or am I just being too simple minded about this?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Please expand on this. What sort of trade secret system do you envisage?

Basically, that the companies get to keep all of the information surrounding the products they make a secret. Whatever certification organization(s) is(are) in place to test the safety and efficacy of drugs would be bound to not disclose the secrets they discover during the approval process. Anyone who leaks the secret can be prosecuted just as they are today. But once the cat's out of the bag, that's it, just like patents today.

The main difference is that there would be no government-sponsored monopoly, so there would be nothing stopping others from benefitting the research they had done on their own which happens to coincide with the other invention.

I would think that medicines may be easier to reverse engineer than other products.

Possibly, but as it is they just look at the patents. They'd also have to wait until the drug came to market, and it would take a couple of years to test and release to the market, and again that's basically the same time period we're looking at with patents.

They are required to print how much of the active ingredient is in the product on the label, and also what the non-active ingredients are.

This is going beyond my knowledge, but I would think there's a difference between knowing what the ingredients are and synthesizing them. Look at the problems competing companies have had coming up with cookies exactly like Oreos, for example; even with the ingredient list.

[Earthborn]

Basically, that the companies get to keep all of the information surrounding the products they make a secret. Whatever certification organization(s) is(are) in place to test the safety and efficacy of drugs would be bound to not disclose the secrets they discover during the approval process. Anyone who leaks the secret can be prosecuted just as they are today. But once the cat's out of the bag, that's it, just like patents today.That won't work for many reasons. Here are just a few I can come up with:
The secret is very hard to keep. It is easy to mail a formula over the internet, without being traced. And by selling the medicine itself, the farmaceutical company automatically gives the secret away: any well equipped laboratory can figure out what it consists off.
Pharmaceutical companies will no longer have an incentive to make new products. They can just put old stuff in a new pill and sell it as a new medicine. The certification organization must keep secret that it is just the same old stuff.
Pharmacists can no longer check the composition of the medication themselves as they are not allowed to know what is in them. This is an increased risk to patients. Mistakes are sometimes made, and the wrong pills end up in the wrong pot. Patients who don't trust the pills they are given because they look different can no longer ask that those are checked for content, as the content is unknown.
Pharmacists can no longer check what the effects are of drug combinations, especially not if similar drugs are differently labelled.
Pharmaceutical companies will have to have their drugs certified, even though the drug they make is very simlar to something that is already on the market with certification. After all, they shouldn't know whether such a drug already exists, the certification body can't tell them, and can't certify without new drug research. As it is now, the FDA can allow medicines, or usually medical equipment, on the market for the fact that it is very similar to something that is already allowed.
Medical research is crippled. If medical researchers want to figure out whether an illness can be treated with a medicine that is already on the market, they will have to know what is in it. Often old medications are discovered to have new applications, because researchers figure out the molecular mechanisms that cause the illness, and when they know the formulas of medicines, they can figure out what might help. In your system, every medicine needs to be marketed for specific ailments, tested for safety and efficacy for it, but independent reseachers can't legally get the information necessary to discover whether it is also effective against something else.
Sorry, but keeping secrets in science is a very bad idea. Especially if it is a science that saves lives.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That won't work for many reasons.

As I said, I could be persuaded to go along with a patent-like system, as long as the problems of the current patent system could be fixed.

[shanek]

Looks like the Illinois governor may force the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10735-2003Sep14.html

Facing budget-breaking increases in prescription drug bills, the governor of Illinois took the first step yesterday toward purchasing lower-cost medications from Canada, a move that puts him in direct conflict with federal regulators and signals a dramatic escalation in the civil war over U.S. drug prices.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, said he has directed the Illinois special advocate to draft a plan for buying inexpensive medications in Canada for as many as 240,000 state employees and retirees. The change could save the state tens of millions of dollars.

"The status quo on prescription drugs is intolerable and unacceptable," Blagojevich said in an interview yesterday. This year, the state is spending $340 million on prescriptions for its workforce, a 15 percent increase over last year.

"I am optimistic we will be able to save literally millions of dollars for the taxpayers and set a precedent other states will follow," the governor said.

[Pyrian]

A ban on imports is not technically price fixing - having the government set the price certainly is price fixing, and is the whole of the reason why we're having this discussion. :cool:

Let's say you succeeded in destroying the current system by allowing imports. Soon companies would specialize in importing cheaper drugs, and nobody would buy the higher local prices. So, the pharmaceutical companies (which BTW aren't doing too well in the current economy anyway) can't make enough money to support new research and collapse.

Yeah, that's good. :rolleyes:

I know! Let's reduce the cost of regulatory compliance! Of course, the only way to do this is by making the ~9,999 drugs that DON'T normally make it to the market have few enough roadblocks that they DO, effectively poisoning the population with virtually untested drugs. Yeah, that makes sense. :eek:

Sure, a few of the larger companies wouldn't do that due to liability concerns - but then for them the deregulation wouldn't help. :p

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
As I said, I could be persuaded to go along with a patent-like system,
as long as the problems of the current patent system could be fixed.

Seperate the functions.
Anyone can develope a drug and get a patent, but that patent becomes
open market totally. In other words, anyone who can pay the royality
gets to manufacture the drug.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Pyrian
I know! Let's reduce the cost of regulatory compliance! Of course, the only way to do this is by making the ~9,999 drugs that DON'T normally make it to the market have few enough roadblocks that they DO, effectively poisoning the population with virtually untested drugs. Yeah, that makes sense. :eek:

"Virtually untested drugs..." I just love how people throw their assumptions into things like this. For your information, there are many, many drugs that in Europe have already been proven to be safe and effective and have been in use for years that the FDA still hasn't allowed in the US.

So, why is it impossible to test for safety and efficacy for much, much cheaper than it's being done now? And why is it that every time such a job is left to the market (like with UL) it does end up being much, much cheaper than the cost of regulation?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Seperate the functions. Anyone can develope a drug and get a patent, but that patent becomes open market totally. In other words, anyone who can pay the royality gets to manufacture the drug.

So they pay a royalty (sounds more like a license) to the company that developed it? That might work...except for cases where a company independently developed the same drug. They'd have no way of making their costs back.

[Earthborn]

As I said, I could be persuaded to go along with a patent-like system, as long as the problems of the current patent system could be fixed.I think that is an error in your thinking. It assumes you could not go along with it if the problems can't be fixed, even if no alternative is available. A better way of looking at it is: "I could be persuaded to go along with a patentlike system if, despite it many faults, no better system can reasonably be expected to be implemented, and it is better than not having such a system at all."
http://www.willemkolffstichting.nl/en/uitspraak3.gif</IMG>And all that...For your information, there are many, many drugs that in Europe have already been proven to be safe and effective and have been in use for years that the FDA still hasn't allowed in the US.

So, why is it impossible to test for safety and efficacy for much, much cheaper than it's being done now?So basically, not only are you saying that the medicines itself, but also the medicine testing should be paid by the tax and premium payers of countries that actually have a functioning health system? (which are not free markets!)

Yes, I bet that would work fairly well... :rolleyes:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

So, why is it impossible to test for safety and efficacy for much, much cheaper than it's being done now?
It probably is possible to do it much cheaper, but only because corporations put profit ahead of patients.

EC: "Hey Bob - take this pill!"
Bob: "Uh, Okay"
EC: "Did ya die, Bob? Any extra eyes or limbs? Everything pretty much where it is supposed to be?"
Bob: "Uh, pretty much."
EC: "Great Bob! Let's put this puppy on the market. Here's $10.00 Bob - don't spend it all in one place!"

And why is it that every time such a job is left to the market (like with UL) it does end up being much, much cheaper than the cost of regulation?
Again, because corporations put profit ahead of patients (or consumers).

Research Guy: "The car tends to explode. We can fix it with a plastic part that costs about one dollar and weighs one pound."
Ford:"F*** that! So a few people blow up. Our bean counters think we can knock off the settlements cheaper. No plastic part."

[scribble]

Originally posted by shanek


So they pay a royalty (sounds more like a license) to the company that developed it? That might work...except for cases where a company independently developed the same drug. They'd have no way of making their costs back.

I'd like to point out a few things. Firstly, this is basically how the system works now - I can sell anyone I like the ability to use my patents.

However, it sounds like the poster who you are responding to was advocating making it required to offer all patents for sale at some fixed prices. If not fixed prices, then the company would just set it astronomically high and no one would buy it...

...if you fix the prices, remember the sword swings both ways. You are discussing patents only in the instance of giant faceless companies. Remember that Joe Schmoe can also invent and patent something.

If I spend my time and brainpower inventing someting, I sure don't want Uncle Sam or anyone else telling me I must give it away to anyone who asks for it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

It probably is possible to do it much cheaper, but only because corporations put profit ahead of patients.

:rolleyes:

Why isn't your hair dryer or your toaster blowing up in your face, Thanz? They were very likely tested and certified by UL, A COMPLETELY PRIVATE BODY, which, according to you, would "put profit ahead of customers."

Doesn't anyone have ANYTHING other than hyperbole and emotion on this issue?

[Pyrian]

shanek:
Doesn't anyone have ANYTHING other than hyperbole and emotion on this issue?shanek:
"Virtually untested drugs..." I just love how people throw their assumptions into things like this.Do you have anything other than accusations of ignorance leveled at Biotech professionals who analyze drug test result data for a living?shanek:
For your information, there are many, many drugs that in Europe have already been proven to be safe and effective and have been in use for years that the FDA still hasn't allowed in the US.For YOUR information, the FDA is a separate regulating body that makes its own decisions, independent of the European bodies. "We use it in France" doesn't cut it. That aside, I would support consolidating the regs to a degree. The US FDA is, in fact, a bit of a stickler. It does, in fact, guard the most lucrative market (why we're having this discussion). I happen to overall like that (except when they block things for political reasons, such as abortion pills).

YOU don't see the drugs that don't ever make it to market. YOU don't see the B.S. statistics that companies try to pass off as legitimate. YOU don't seem to understand the fact that for each successful drug there are an average of 10,000 candidates.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Pyrian
Do you have anything other than accusations of ignorance leveled at Biotech professionals who analyze drug test result data for a living?

It's not an accusation of ignorance. It's pointing out a fallacy of the excluded middle.

For YOUR information, the FDA is a separate regulating body that makes its own decisions,

It's an arm of the US government.

YOU don't see the drugs that don't ever make it to market.

And, consequently, you don't see the lives lost by having these drugs denied. Robert Goldberg of Brandeis University estimated that over 200,000 Americans have died waiting for the FDA to approve medicine that would have save their lives. But since few people these deaths, there are few people lobbying the government on their behalf. Not when compared to the enormous political posturing there is to be done to have saved Americans from a drug that would have maybe killed about 5 or 6 of them a year, even if it would have saved 100.

[Pyrian]

shanek:
I just love how people throw their assumptions into things like this.shanek:
It's not an accusation of ignorance. It's pointing out a fallacy of the excluded middle.No, "throw their assumptions into things" is nothing less than an accusation of ignorance. I'm sure you could've posted a perfectly fine statement about hyperbolic fallacy, but you didn't.shanek:
It's an arm of the US government.In context I think my statement was clearly referring to the FDA being separate from Europe. :rolleyes: I'm not going to try to argue that the FDA is flawless - it isn't, and could use substantial reform. But I'm not so interested in throwing the baby out with the bath water and hoping that industry will regulate itself.shanek:
And, consequently, you don't see the lives lost by having these drugs denied. Robert Goldberg of Brandeis University estimated that over 200,000 Americans have died waiting for the FDA to approve medicine that would have save their lives. But since few people these deaths, there are few people lobbying the government on their behalf. Not when compared to the enormous political posturing there is to be done to have saved Americans from a drug that would have maybe killed about 5 or 6 of them a year, even if it would have saved 100.Interesting - I tried to follow up on your reference. I found any number of libertarian publications who presented a substantially better quote than you did, but not a single reference in any of them. Meanwhile, I found any number of articles by the guy quoted, none of which included those quotes (though I did not check them all).

But if we're agreeing to cite him as an expert, I humbly submit the following:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_chictrib-drug_reimportation.htm

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-no_new_drugs.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030714-083142-7351r.htm

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


:rolleyes:

Why isn't your hair dryer or your toaster blowing up in your face, Thanz? They were very likely tested and certified by UL, A COMPLETELY PRIVATE BODY, which, according to you, would "put profit ahead of customers."

Doesn't anyone have ANYTHING other than hyperbole and emotion on this issue?
That's all I get? ONE rolleyes? I was hoping for a :mad: as well.

I am sure that the only conceivable reason that my toaster doesn't blow up in my face is the holy and exulted Underwriters Labratory, at whose altar we should all worship.

Don't you think that drugs are completely different in kind than toasters? Do you have any evidence that would suggest a UL type body would even be created, let alone be cheaper?

Why are we debating this again? It seems to me that we went more than ten rounds on the "FDA is killing my dad" :rolleyes: thread.