I hope the day will come when the Monotheists have enough confidence in their religious beliefs that they don't feel the need for them to be confirmed by forcing everyone else to agree with them.Originally posted by: amok
I know that, of course. However, not participating in something personally due to religious beliefs is one thing, but imposing those belief systems onto others is not protected by the consititution. There is a big difference in the two, and we should keep that in mind when making policy. Those who oppose certain types of research for religious reasons can simply refuse to be treated by an medical advances that comes from it. Simple enough.
In any case, reducing the barrier to entry into the medical profession will reduce the quality of medical service, just as the union-backers say that reducing the barrier to entry into hard labor jobs will reduce the quality of that labor. Of course, they support lowering the barrier to entry in retail companies. I don't get it. :\
Drewshin im not responding to your post(even tho it sounds like you are pro-globilization, which is not a good system) but your sig. Be fair and include something about clinton skipping out on military service.
Lets' let the people prove it.
Are these Drug Ads in your face on TV, Magazines and everywhere in the rest of the world? People from the Number One Country Finland, Belgium and everywhere please chime in here.
Is your Media dominated by the Drug Companies there as well???
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
How does an over-abundance of drug advertising mean that they spend more on advertising than R&D?
Oh, and why shouldn't the drug companies be able to charge whatever they want and spend their earnings however they please? Or maybe you'd be happier in a "nanny state" where people weren't allowed to make a profit.
Imagine if the labor of factory workers was owned outright by a Union. Think of the profits they could make charging the factory owners any set price they wanted!
Are you so opposed to rewarding people for the work they do? If it's for the public good, then the public should fund it and own the IP to it. We'd just have to increase taxes on the "poor" so that they pay their fair share of the drugs they need.
There have been unsubstantiated claims posted in this thread that there are drugs developed with government money which get patented by private entities. If that really is the case and isn't some word game confusing a patent on the drug with ownership of some specific factory, then it's a situation that needs to be remedied, immediately.
Exactly the right question. Also, the figures for R&D costs don't actually cover the costs of doing R&D for most drugs that are developed. Even looking at all the financial transactions of all pharmaceutical manufacturers won't cover all that, as there are plenty of failed biotech startups.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
If it is a Union Shop then the Factory Workers Labor is owned by the Union because the Factory Workers are the Union. The Factory Owners pays the Factory Workers for their labor and the by product of their labor is the property of the Factory Owner.
Actually the poor get the drugs they need thanks to the Government, it's the Middle Class that are screwed..well at least those that have weak or no Health Insurance what so ever. As for compensation for their work everybody deserves it. Should they be able to gouge the American Consumer, no. Even if they don't that doesn't mean that Drug Prices won't be high, just not as outrageous. Of course if we weren't throwing away Billions on top of Billions for some Group of Asswipes view of Pax Americana maybe we would have the funds to help offset the cost of R&D for these new drugs that are being developed.Are you so opposed to rewarding people for the work they do? If it's for the public good, then the public should fund it and own the IP to it. We'd just have to increase taxes on the "poor" so that they pay their fair share of the drugs they need.
It's not just the drugs that have ridiculous prices here.
The prices for doctor visits are rather insane as well.
The prices for doctor visits are rather insane as well.
And if the product is from a drug company then the drugs are owned by the company.
I agree that something should be done, but it shouldn't involve outlawing or discouraging competition and capitalism. Still, I don't see how anyone is entitled to any non-emergency medical care. If you kill the prices, you kill the desire to produce and you punish the people who studied hard to learn how to provide care and develop drugs. If that punishment is due to others doing the same job for less, so be it. (But you shouldn't agree with that statement lest you show hypocrisy.Actually the poor get the drugs they need thanks to the Government, it's the Middle Class that are screwed..well at least those that have weak or no Health Insurance what so ever. As for compensation for their work everybody deserves it. Should they be able to gouge the American Consumer, no. Even if they don't that doesn't mean that Drug Prices won't be high, just not as outrageous. Of course if we weren't throwing away Billions on top of Billions for some Group of Asswipes view of Pax Americana maybe we would have the funds to help offset the cost of R&D for these new drugs that are being developed.Are you so opposed to rewarding people for the work they do? If it's for the public good, then the public should fund it and own the IP to it. We'd just have to increase taxes on the "poor" so that they pay their fair share of the drugs they need.
) But if the punishment is due to someone saying that you're not allowed to charge what others will gladly pay, then we might as well be in the Soviet Union and have the industries run by the state in the first place.I have no clue what that Pax Americana crap is about, but I suspect it's some sort of criticism of the wastage of money on Iraq. If so, fair enough, medical research is a far better way to spend our money.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I really don't disagree with you regarding drugs for non life threatening conditions. I also don't disagree that those who develop the drugs should be compensated for their time and investment.....as long as they don't gouge the publicOriginally posted by: rjain
And if the product is from a drug company then the drugs are owned by the company.
I agree that something should be done, but it shouldn't involve outlawing or discouraging competition and capitalism. Still, I don't see how anyone is entitled to any non-emergency medical care. If you kill the prices, you kill the desire to produce and you punish the people who studied hard to learn how to provide care and develop drugs. If that punishment is due to others doing the same job for less, so be it. (But you shouldn't agree with that statement lest you show hypocrisy.Actually the poor get the drugs they need thanks to the Government, it's the Middle Class that are screwed..well at least those that have weak or no Health Insurance what so ever. As for compensation for their work everybody deserves it. Should they be able to gouge the American Consumer, no. Even if they don't that doesn't mean that Drug Prices won't be high, just not as outrageous. Of course if we weren't throwing away Billions on top of Billions for some Group of Asswipes view of Pax Americana maybe we would have the funds to help offset the cost of R&D for these new drugs that are being developed.Are you so opposed to rewarding people for the work they do? If it's for the public good, then the public should fund it and own the IP to it. We'd just have to increase taxes on the "poor" so that they pay their fair share of the drugs they need.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Red
Perhaps the high cost of drugs wouldn't be so pronounced, and the insurance companies and government programs might be better able to pay for them, if there weren't so many damned unnecessary drugs being prescribed.
http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p160.htm
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/health-spending.htm
Here's a couple of sources saying that:
"Antidepressants were the best-selling category of prescription drugs last year, as they were in the previous year. Retail sales of antidepressants totaled over $10 billion in 2000, up 21% from the previous year. Drugs to treat heartburn, ulcers and other gastrointestinal problems were second to antidepressants in overall sales."
$10 billion in antidepressants in 2000? And you say the war in Iraq is a waste? Extrapolating those numbers, this country has spent nearly as much on antidepressants in the past 5 years as Bush has requested for Iraq. I wonder how many of those prescriptions were really necessary?
Perhaps the high cost of drugs wouldn't be so pronounced, and the insurance companies and government programs might be better able to pay for them, if there weren't so many damned unnecessary drugs being prescribed.
http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p160.htm
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/health-spending.htm
Here's a couple of sources saying that:
"Antidepressants were the best-selling category of prescription drugs last year, as they were in the previous year. Retail sales of antidepressants totaled over $10 billion in 2000, up 21% from the previous year. Drugs to treat heartburn, ulcers and other gastrointestinal problems were second to antidepressants in overall sales."
$10 billion in antidepressants in 2000? And you say the war in Iraq is a waste? Extrapolating those numbers, this country has spent nearly as much on antidepressants in the past 5 years as Bush has requested for Iraq. I wonder how many of those prescriptions were really necessary?
Ha ha, the HMO's have gotten bigger than the Country itself, now the Supreme Court will bring them back down to Earth.
Ruby Calad case will be heard by the USSC. Her HMO sent her home against the Surgeon orders.
PROFITS over LIFE.
Ruby Calad case will be heard by the USSC. Her HMO sent her home against the Surgeon orders.
PROFITS over LIFE.
Except for the people who don't have millions of dollars in the bank.
They get better deals for their customers, probably, so the profit has to be made off the uninsured.
They're not the only ones with rights to sell any entire class of drugs. They have rights to the drugs they discovered and developed. Or are you opposing the idea of intellectual property?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter