Why is medicine so expensive in the US?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: IGBT
..to pay for and subsidise all the free med's given to illegals that walk into EM clinics and demand free medical and med's service. No free lunch. Somebody has to pay. Illegal anchor babies also require lots of pre/post med's/medical. All free of course.

That's an ignorant and bigoted statement. Meds themselves, are very very cheap to produce. It's why they can give thousand dollar AIDs meds for nearly free to Africa. It's the R&D, lawsuits, advertisements, etc that's the real cost.

That's like saying that CDs cost pennies to make.

The product is the R&D. Not the pill itself.

No idea WTF you're saying there.

But IGBT claimed that the reason why meds are high is because of the free meds that are given to the illegals to cover the costs of those free meds. It's not. Costs are high because of other reasons i mentioned.

The R&D costs have to recouped, with the patients receiving the meds acting as the pool. If the costs are not spread equally among the pool of patients, then they have to be spread unequally. Granted, poverty-stricken AIDS patients in Africa aren't going to be able to pay anyway, so giving away to them is fine IMO, however they do represent a significant side of the demand for the drug, demand stimulates investment (in this case, R&D), and thus the overall costs do get shifted disproportionately to one side of the patient pool.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Good gawd, do you think chemotherapy is FREE? Do you think profits are not made on cancer treatments?

R&D is driven by profit. Without profit there is very little incentive to find and create new drugs.

Money and "greed" makes the world go 'round. As much as you'd like to think altruism exists, it does not.

BTW, Viagra was originally meant to be a heart drug. A common side effect was increased erections. So more R&D was done and the drug was allowed to be released as an ED drug since it had too little effect on hypertension, but resulted in increased erections.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Yeah, 'cause there's no money to be made from curing cancer... :roll:

There undoubtedly is Profit to be made, but that doesn't mean that "Capitalism" is the driving force behind Research.

You have proven many times in the past here that you have no idea what "Capitalism" is, beyond a confused negative conception of Scrooge McDucks swimming through vaults of money.

Capitalism is investment. It is the investment of assets (capital) towards the prospect of returns. In other words, if there is profit even potentially to be made, then capitalism is there given the free opportunity. So your argument just sounds silly.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Yeah, 'cause there's no money to be made from curing cancer... :roll:

There undoubtedly is Profit to be made, but that doesn't mean that "Capitalism" is the driving force behind Research.

You have proven many times in the past here that you have no idea what "Capitalism" is, beyond a confused negative conception of Scrooge McDucks swimming through vaults of money.

Capitalism is investment. It is the investment of assets (capital) towards the prospect of returns. In other words, if there is profit even potentially to be made, then capitalism is there given the free opportunity. So your argument just sounds silly.

Yeah, I would say it is pretty obvious he has no idea what capitalism is.

What a sad example of our education system.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: IGBT
..to pay for and subsidise all the free med's given to illegals that walk into EM clinics and demand free medical and med's service. No free lunch. Somebody has to pay. Illegal anchor babies also require lots of pre/post med's/medical. All free of course.

That's an ignorant and bigoted statement. Meds themselves, are very very cheap to produce. It's why they can give thousand dollar AIDs meds for nearly free to Africa. It's the R&D, lawsuits, advertisements, etc that's the real cost.

That's like saying that CDs cost pennies to make.

The product is the R&D. Not the pill itself.

No idea WTF you're saying there.

But IGBT claimed that the reason why meds are high is because of the free meds that are given to the illegals to cover the costs of those free meds. It's not. Costs are high because of other reasons i mentioned.

The R&D costs have to recouped, with the patients receiving the meds acting as the pool. If the costs are not spread equally among the pool of patients, then they have to be spread unequally. Granted, poverty-stricken AIDS patients in Africa aren't going to be able to pay anyway, so giving away to them is fine IMO, however they do represent a significant side of the demand for the drug, demand stimulates investment (in this case, R&D), and thus the overall costs do get shifted disproportionately to one side of the patient pool.

So you're saying that without illegal aliens receiving these free meds (lets say the US had no illegal aliens at all), that meds would be cheaper?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: IGBT
..to pay for and subsidise all the free med's given to illegals that walk into EM clinics and demand free medical and med's service. No free lunch. Somebody has to pay. Illegal anchor babies also require lots of pre/post med's/medical. All free of course.

That's an ignorant and bigoted statement. Meds themselves, are very very cheap to produce. It's why they can give thousand dollar AIDs meds for nearly free to Africa. It's the R&D, lawsuits, advertisements, etc that's the real cost.

That's like saying that CDs cost pennies to make.

The product is the R&D. Not the pill itself.

No idea WTF you're saying there.

But IGBT claimed that the reason why meds are high is because of the free meds that are given to the illegals to cover the costs of those free meds. It's not. Costs are high because of other reasons i mentioned.

The R&D costs have to recouped, with the patients receiving the meds acting as the pool. If the costs are not spread equally among the pool of patients, then they have to be spread unequally. Granted, poverty-stricken AIDS patients in Africa aren't going to be able to pay anyway, so giving away to them is fine IMO, however they do represent a significant side of the demand for the drug, demand stimulates investment (in this case, R&D), and thus the overall costs do get shifted disproportionately to one side of the patient pool.

So you're saying that without illegal aliens receiving these free meds (lets say the US had no illegal aliens at all), that meds would be cheaper?

Overall, yes. Given a free market (which is decidedly lacking in the US healthcare system, but I'll stipulate), less demand means lower prices. Prices are not determined by costs, except that investment diminishes if demand causes prices to drop below costs.

edit: however, as I already said, in the US' quasi-socialist corporatist system, prices are jacked to cover costs and profits, as dictated indirectly through regulation, with the patients acting as the pool to cover it (the Pharmas are essentially protected from loss). When the payers in the pool pay disproportionately, as they do in this case, then there is obviously a "shallow" and a "deep" end of the pool.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Because the health care system is designed to maximize profits for special interests, not provide affordable care to Americans. From the medical school accreditation to drug patents to government programs to FDA to Customs are all designed to have as much of a percent of GDP go to medical care through blatant market manipulation.

so you want unlicensed doctors, untested medicines, and no protection if you get fvcked over by either?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Good gawd, do you think chemotherapy is FREE? Do you think profits are not made on cancer treatments?

R&D is driven by profit. Without profit there is very little incentive to find and create new drugs.

Money and "greed" makes the world go 'round. As much as you'd like to think altruism exists, it does not.

BTW, Viagra was originally meant to be a heart drug. A common side effect was increased erections. So more R&D was done and the drug was allowed to be released as an ED drug since it had too little effect on hypertension, but resulted in increased erections.

Good gawd back at you. Did I once call Corps evil or that Profits were bad? I just merely pointed out the fact that "Capitalism" does not drive Drug Developement. I didn't say it had nothing to do with it either, I merely do not attribute the whole thing to it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Yeah, 'cause there's no money to be made from curing cancer... :roll:

There undoubtedly is Profit to be made, but that doesn't mean that "Capitalism" is the driving force behind Research.

You have proven many times in the past here that you have no idea what "Capitalism" is, beyond a confused negative conception of Scrooge McDucks swimming through vaults of money.

Capitalism is investment. It is the investment of assets (capital) towards the prospect of returns. In other words, if there is profit even potentially to be made, then capitalism is there given the free opportunity. So your argument just sounds silly.

It is more than Investment, far more. Even the Soviet Union "Invested" in things. Capitalism and Corporatism are deply intertwined, especially in the subject at hand.

 

[Phokus]

Because drug companies recover their large investments in the drugs through the US consumer... the drugs themselves are dirt cheap to make so they can negotiate the prices down with other governments. Don't know why we need 4 pages of discussion when the answer is bloody simple

 

[91TTZ]

I think with strict copyright, intellectual property rights, and patent laws, prices are kept artificially high in the US. Sure, it costs a lot to make these drugs, but that only accounts for some of the price. Profit margins in the US are huge. They're like that because of the way our system is currently set up. Smaller companies could never compete in the drug market, since the cost of admission is so high.

Also, while I'm not a liberal socialist, I do have to admit that our government is in bed with a lot of these companies. The courts seem to favor large corporations. Something as simple as inkjet cartridges are a good example of this. HP bases its business model on selling cheap printers and making up the money on ink cartridges. When asked about the high price of these cartridges, HP isn't going to come out an admit that this is how they make their profit, but it's common knowledge that this is the case. Hp will claim that it's because of the "high quality, complexity" blah blah blah. Yet when another, smaller company comes around produces a kit that lets you refill your cartridge for cheap, HP sues to shut them down. The reason isn't because that company did anything wrong, the real reason is because that company just let you bypass HP's profit model, and if they won that case, that would set a bad precedent for other large corporations using a similar business model.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Yeah, 'cause there's no money to be made from curing cancer... :roll:

There undoubtedly is Profit to be made, but that doesn't mean that "Capitalism" is the driving force behind Research.

You have proven many times in the past here that you have no idea what "Capitalism" is, beyond a confused negative conception of Scrooge McDucks swimming through vaults of money.

Capitalism is investment. It is the investment of assets (capital) towards the prospect of returns. In other words, if there is profit even potentially to be made, then capitalism is there given the free opportunity. So your argument just sounds silly.

It is more than Investment, far more. Even the Soviet Union "Invested" in things. Capitalism and Corporatism are deply intertwined, especially in the subject at hand.

No. Capitalism requires private investment in free markets. By very definition. You are confused (and ignorant as to basic economics). You couldn't start up a pharma in the US today even assuming unlimited capital. Corporatism is a mixed-economy form of fascism, when government and collectivist business interest become interwined. For example, look at how your Canadian government controls business in your country and divvies out contracts. Are you going to prove yourself even more a fool here and say that that is capitalism?

 

[eits]

irony = a thread titled "why is medicine so expensive in the us" by a guy named corporate thug.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Good gawd, do you think chemotherapy is FREE? Do you think profits are not made on cancer treatments?

R&D is driven by profit. Without profit there is very little incentive to find and create new drugs.

Money and "greed" makes the world go 'round. As much as you'd like to think altruism exists, it does not.

BTW, Viagra was originally meant to be a heart drug. A common side effect was increased erections. So more R&D was done and the drug was allowed to be released as an ED drug since it had too little effect on hypertension, but resulted in increased erections.

Good gawd back at you. Did I once call Corps evil or that Profits were bad? I just merely pointed out the fact that "Capitalism" does not drive Drug Developement. I didn't say it had nothing to do with it either, I merely do not attribute the whole thing to it.

wall street provides more money for drug development than government grants

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I think with strict copyright, intellectual property rights, and patent laws, prices are kept artificially high in the US. Sure, it costs a lot to make these drugs, but that only accounts for some of the price. Profit margins in the US are huge. They're like that because of the way our system is currently set up. Smaller companies could never compete in the drug market, since the cost of admission is so high.

Also, while I'm not a liberal socialist, I do have to admit that our government is in bed with a lot of these companies. The courts seem to favor large corporations. Something as simple as inkjet cartridges are a good example of this. HP bases its business model on selling cheap printers and making up the money on ink cartridges. When asked about the high price of these cartridges, HP isn't going to come out an admit that this is how they make their profit, but it's common knowledge that this is the case. Hp will claim that it's because of the "high quality, complexity" blah blah blah. Yet when another, smaller company comes around produces a kit that lets you refill your cartridge for cheap, HP sues to shut them down. The reason isn't because that company did anything wrong, the real reason is because that company just let you bypass HP's profit model, and if they won that case, that would set a bad precedent for other large corporations using a similar business model.

Your example of HP there is representative of exactly what I'm talking about. The socialists LOVE such systems while complaining about them at the same time. It is only through a strange combination of ignorance and cynicism that they get people to believe that they are against the very type of system they are working to create.
The capitalist economic model is represented in your example by the small company that sees profit from investing in the refill kit. The corporatist model is in the big corporation that reinforces its inefficient profit model through government action. The socialist cynicism is in the lies and propaganda that capitalism and corporatism are "deeply intertwined" when it is obvious that they are in direct opposition to each other. The socialist ignorance is the result of the doublethink that they WANT the government control, even though they know it can be easily abused. However, the abuse itself (they know) provides the impetus for increased government control, thus moving forward to their goal of total government control, which is in reality their sole objective.

 

[iversonyin]

Before you guys say ANYTHING. What is the personal income tax rate in Canada compare to U.S.?!

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Before you guys say ANYTHING. What is the personal income tax rate in Canada compare to U.S.?!

Income tax in Canada is different than the US because a person may not have to pay tax if their income is below the bell curve taxable level. Then tax start out at around 17-18% depends on the province (Canada have federal & provincial income tax) then it can go as high as 49-51%. Family that are exempt from income tax tend to be exempt from health care payment as well , and that is the main reason for many welfare recipients not to look for work.

In reality middle class Canadian pay just about as much as the American for health care if their company doesn't provide it as a benefit, and Canadian pay far higher income tax than American.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80
it's so funny, so many of you are blaming capitalism for high drug prices, but don't understand that it's capitalism that brought you the drug in the first place.

Not really.

LOL, you think new drugs come from altruism and charity?

Science. Some from Charity, some from Public(Government) Funding, some from Corp spending. Capitalism has only a peripheral influence on it.

:::sigh:::

Do you think many, if anyone would develop new drugs if there wasn't profit to be made?

Peripheral my ass. Capitalism is the main drive in the creation of new drugs.

Negative, Capitalism has little to do with it. Capitalism like Drugs like Viagra or other Mass Demand type of Drug, but when it comes to Cancer or other Life Saving Drug Other avenues take up the cause much more so than Capitalism. I'm sure Capitalism will show up when a Cure or New Treatment is on the way, but the Basic R&D and Theoretical R&D will be dominated by non-Capitalist forms.

Good gawd, do you think chemotherapy is FREE? Do you think profits are not made on cancer treatments?

R&D is driven by profit. Without profit there is very little incentive to find and create new drugs.

Money and "greed" makes the world go 'round. As much as you'd like to think altruism exists, it does not.

BTW, Viagra was originally meant to be a heart drug. A common side effect was increased erections. So more R&D was done and the drug was allowed to be released as an ED drug since it had too little effect on hypertension, but resulted in increased erections.

Good gawd back at you. Did I once call Corps evil or that Profits were bad? I just merely pointed out the fact that "Capitalism" does not drive Drug Developement. I didn't say it had nothing to do with it either, I merely do not attribute the whole thing to it.

wall street provides more money for drug development than government grants

Tried to find hard numbers on Medical Research Funding, wasn't easy, but here are some numbers on it. US statistics I was wrong about one thing, "Capitalism" isn't on the periphery of Funding, but it constitutes approx 42% of Funding on Medical Research in the US. The other 48% of Funding in the US is dominated from Government Sources with some from Charitable Sources.

That is, however, just the US. All Industrialized Nations and even Developing and Under Developed Nations perform Medical Research to varying degrees. It should be noted that the recent Private Investment in Bio-Medical Research only occurred after the completion of the near 2 decade long Human Genome Project which was funded Publicly(Government agencies) in the US and around the World. $billions were spent on this in the US alone and $billions were spent globally.

To sum up: "Capitalism" isn't on the "periphery", but it is not the driving source either. Government and Private Charities surpass the funding provided by "Capitalist" sources.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: AgentJean

Originally posted by: bctbct
Heres one example

NEW YORK (Fortune) - The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it's proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that's now the most-sought after drug in the world.

He was fired a long time ago.

Shows what you know.

CNN has been alerted to update the article they wrote in October 2005, that make you happy?

Do you have any comments on the merits of the article I quoted or do you just want to knit pick?

 

[ubercaffeinated]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
no government subsidies, drug research costs money, supply/demand

It's mostly supply/demand (IE capitalism). Canada's government bargains with industry to get the lowest cost possible to their people... Why do they do that? Because they have universal healthcare. The reality is US health care sucks. It tries to cover the young and the old (keyword tries, because it fails even at that), and leaves the middle healthy population basically uninsured. And even if you is "insured" in the US, there is also always the question of "are you adequately insured?".