Prescription Drugs...a plan by Bush!?!?

[Random Access]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/bush.generic.drugs/index.html

Wow. Some legislation that I might actually agree with!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[agent]

yeah this is good news.

i take a prescription daily and if i didnt have ins. it would be 120 bucks a month..

 

[dpark74]

Not good for people like me in the pharmaceutical industry. Who's gonna make and develop the drugs that the generic companies carbon copy?!

The drug industry is paying my way through this application cycle.

 

[Woots32]

Y'know, I used to consider myself as having a political party affiliation. But now I focus more on the individual candidates, and in the future will probably be paying alot of attentions to their stance on health care. Hope everyone else does the same! (My own little "Rock the Vote" speech )

 

[Cerberus]

Originally posted by dpark74
Not good for people like me in the pharmaceutical industry. Who's gonna make and develop the drugs that the generic companies carbon copy?!

The drug industry is paying my way through this application cycle.

well your research is highly subsidized by taxpayer money, only seems fair that those who pay for it get affordable access to the drugs you design.

 

[dpark74]

Originally posted by Cerberus
well your research is highly subsidized by taxpayer money, only seems fair that those who pay for it get affordable access to the drugs you design.

The vast amount of revenue comes from insurance pay outs NOT taxpayers! I agree that everyone is entitled to affordable drugs but the world isn't perfect. Let's see how you feel about everything when no one is researching and developing future drugs. What good is affordable drugs in the present when there won't be effective drugs in the future? (you can talk all you want about other therapies, but none are more effective and ubiquitous than Rx drugs.)

 

[Kirk]

A couple of points I think you missed. First off, where do you think the insurance company gets the money to pay the pharmaceutical companies? From the taxpayers, obviously!

Secondly, your argument about developing new drugs might hold some water if they used all the revenue to create new drugs, but they don?t. They spend more on advertisement then they do on R&D! Also, the United States gives them VERY nice benefits for operating here ? they are protected for 11 years from generic manufacturers. In the last several years while our economy has languished, these companies have still been able to produce double-digit profit margins. For these benefits, I believe that the drug companies owe the people of our country. They should do their best to come up with new drugs, and not use unethical means to inflate their already large bottom line.

 

[dpark74]

Originally posted by Kirk
A couple of points I think you missed. First off, where do you think the insurance company gets the money to pay the pharmaceutical companies? From the taxpayers, obviously!

Secondly, your argument about developing new drugs might hold some water if they used all the revenue to create new drugs, but they don?t. They spend more on advertisement then they do on R&D! Also, the United States gives them VERY nice benefits for operating here ? they are protected for 11 years from generic manufacturers. In the last several years while our economy has languished, these companies have still been able to produce double-digit profit margins. For these benefits, I believe that the drug companies owe the people of our country. They should do their best to come up with new drugs, and not use unethical means to inflate their already large bottom line.

Your first point is off, man. Of course the taxpayers pay the insurance companies but if you've ever worked a day in your life, then you would notice on your pay stub that only $7-10 of it goes to the insurance companies. (Actually, my company pays up the ying yang to provide quality health insurance for its employees! So, in fact its somewhat cyclical in that the insurance companies pay the pharmaceutical companies and vice-versa.)

Your last point is valid. I don't disagree with you. They do spend more money on advertising than R&D and I am opposed to it.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by dpark74
The vast amount of revenue comes from insurance pay outs NOT taxpayers! I agree that everyone is entitled to affordable drugs but the world isn't perfect. Let's see how you feel about everything when no one is researching and developing future drugs. What good is affordable drugs in the present when there won't be effective drugs in the future? (you can talk all you want about other therapies, but none are more effective and ubiquitous than Rx drugs.)

I don't really agree with your argument that no one will be able to afford research. That's just something pharms say. If you look at the numbers, it's just not true.

As to the insurance thing, taxpayers pay some for insurance. While a lot of the rest of it is paid by employers, that doesn't really bolster your point. Someone else paying for it in the end, and it's not the insurance companies by any means. Their bottom lines are doing well too.

Drug companies have plenty of money for R&D. And they haven't been doing enough of it. I've written on SDN about studies about how too high a percentage of drugs are really derivatives of previous drugs and not necessarily any better. (see Celexa/Lexapro, Nexium/Prilosec, Claritin/Clarinex--all for the bottom line)

Furthermore, the federal government sponsors a lot of R&D, and many of these patents have been assigned to pharms, even though the federal government shouldered the load. The pharms make plenty of revenue, even without litigating for those extra 30 months. Have you seen their sales numbers?

I think pharms are stifling research with their patents personally. Just a personal opinion though, after talking to lots of my Biochem friends (grad students/post-undergrad research assistants).