|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2004 : 01:48:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I think Starman was skeptical to your claim that the pharmacuetical industry was the most profitable in the world. I myself always thought that narcotics, arms, and oil was on top of that list. At least they top international gross product. That's what I have been told.
I like that answer Dr M.
quote:
Its great that people developing pharmacuetic drugs make money, thats how capitalism works. If anybody think that any other economic system is better to produce the drugs the world need, please show me. (No utopian dreams please)
Capitalism does need some checks and balances once in a while.
quote:
People in the third world lacks drugs, not because companies charge to much for them, but because their own governments and other governments lacks the interest to spend any real money on the problem. Blaming greedy companies is much more convenient.
Well, that's a bit naive. Countries lack resources for a multitude of reasons, some even because the US has aided their bad governments. There's plenty of blame to go around.
quote:
Governments, organizations and even individuals can also develop drugs, by patents or cooperate with established companies to get better control of the cost.
If the profit margins are so exorbitant, why don't they?
Well I wouldn't mind starting a billion dollar business, got any capitol I can borrow?
One thing I see over and over in these kinds of discussions is the black and white world. You just can't boil these things down to such simple explanations or statements.
Drug companies would go for profits over people if left to their own devices, I don't care how many grand babies the CEOs have. That is the nature of corporate structure.
Capitalism has produced more medical advances than any other system so no one wants to stop that progress.
But drug companies do spend lots of money on R&D for new versions of the same drugs to get their market share of a good thing. They spend incredible amounts on marketing.
There have been some recent reports of regular suppression of bad research results and hiring expert doctors to 'ghost write' research the drug companies have already done. In other words, they fund research and if they don't like the outcome, they own the research so they quash it. And as a marketing tool, they hire well respected researchers to go out and report the results of studies at conferences as if the experts were reporting on their own findings instead of reporting on the drug company research findings.
I've been to lots of those conferences. They are misleading. But they usually have good food.
Gorgo, I don't think all substantial research is government funded. There are lots of small biotech firms working on one or two drugs or treatments. Once they are successful, some of them sell the patents or create joint ventures with bigger companies.
Most big drug companies do have funding to provide access to expensive drugs for folks who can't afford them. But the charity is by no means very comprehensive. The patent issue has especially become a hot topic because of the AIDS epidemic.
The trouble is when your product means the difference between life or death for someone, it's very hard to resolve the profit issues.
We have decided utilities need regulating. You can't just let utility companies raise prices without limit on a product everyone has to buy. It works the same way. If you take all the profit out, who will build more energy capacity? If you don't regulate, (like the Bush admin would have it) you get Enrons ripping off everyone.
Pharmaceutical companies do need oversight. And, no one wants to stop innovation. The problem of deciding how much and what kind does not have a simple black and white solution.
I think in the future it will get much worse. There is no way society can afford all the health care we are developing for all people. It isn't just going to be worse care for the uninsured, it is going to be life for some and more death for more people who can't buy life.
We will have to decide, do we want more equality in health care or do we want to see a bigger and bigger rich and poor division. It is going to come down to that and probably sooner rather than later. |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 02:46:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Capitalism does need some checks and balances once in a while.
Definitely!quote:
quote:
People in the third world lacks drugs, not because companies charge to much for them, but because their own governments and other governments lacks the interest to spend any real money on the problem. Blaming greedy companies is much more convenient.
Well, that's a bit naive. Countries lack resources for a multitude of reasons, some even because the US has aided their bad governments. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Yes, some countries do lack the resources, but the western world doesn't.
quote:
Well I wouldn't mind starting a billion dollar business, got any capitol I can borrow?
Not billions, but if you have a interesting idea, I might invest.
Others might as well.
quote:
Capitalism has produced more medical advances than any other system so no one wants to stop that progress.
Really? Some people favour their own world views and short term needs to reality.
quote:
One thing I see over and over in these kinds of discussions is the black and white world. You just can't boil these things down to such simple explanations or statements.
...
The trouble is when your product means the difference between life or death for someone, it's very hard to resolve the profit issues
...
We have decided utilities need regulating. You can't just let utility companies raise prices without limit on a product everyone has to buy. It works the same way. If you take all the profit out, who will build more energy capacity?
Agree, I'm just feed up with the idea that the companies profit margin is the problem or that they are evil as they are in it for the money.
Expropriation is sometimes a necessary evil. That doesn't mean that a government should take what it want as soon as the price is high. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 03:32:01 [Permalink]
|
Guess I have to be more careful using absolute terms like 'no one' or 'everyone'. My bad.
Profit is a good thing. I'm with you on that. But I haven't trusted corporations to do the right thing since my hippy days. They didn't act for the benefit of people then and many of them don't today. We need more Ben & Jerry's in this world. |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 06:00:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
We need more Ben & Jerry's in this world.
You mean before they sold out? |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 22:04:52 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, before they sold out. |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 00:16:09 [Permalink]
|
This pharmaceutical debate is going to lead many of us back to where we began. Besides, I'm not a big fan of Ben and Jerry's anyway, even before they sold out, because of the terrible milk products used, however, this is simply a personal opinion.
No one's ever going to have the perfect answers, except, according to some of the Bible, the Antichrist, and that will only be seemingly. In a drastic, radical view, if we continue to allow the pharmaceutical companies to keep rising the profits, then obviously more are going to die, and hey! Population control! Whoop-de-doo! But economically, this won't work, because the more that die, the more profit could possibly die, and my high school economics teacher taught us that a company will eventually notice a large targeted group of consumers and sell to them. Profits would be as competitive to other companies. So if drugs get too expensive, eventually a corporation will have a price deflation to meet the needs of millions of people to have their money in the company's bank accounts. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 01:13:52 [Permalink]
|
First off, I've read some of your past posts satans_mom, and may I say you truly deserve that name.  I'm kidding.
Also, with the whole Board of Directors and the people way up high. They do whats in the best interest of the company, and that involves profits and expansion. I recently was watching a documentary about corporations...and they were interviewing former CEOs and they were saying how they were acting in the best interest of the companies, even if it meant going against their own moral standings. It doesn't make them 'bad' themselves, but the decisions had to be made for profit, etc. And interestingly, the documentary outlined that the WHO's clasification of a psychopath matched the description of a corporation. This documentary was on TVO (Television Ontario).
I think the system here in Canada is a good example of what SHOULD be done. As said before, the utility needs to have some regulation to keep it in line. same with capatailism. I agree, and that's what Canada's system works or tries to work. Our Hydro for Ontario provides electricity and water for most of Ontario and parts of USA. However, recently it was privitized. People in Onterio were scared of rising prices in electricity. But the government closely monitors these rates , etc as the privitization transition continues. I think this is a good idea to keep the new Hydro company in line but also allow them to profit.
Also, Canadian businesses' prducts and services are monitored by the government (from my understanding from high school business class).
As with prescription products, it's cheaper here than in the states
 . If you have been following the news lately, Canadian drugs were selling down in the states. Of course, American drug companies started complaining about this issue saying how it is lowering their profits. I think this is a good indication that the prices of prescription drugs are high in the USA.
In the end I think USA government needs to be able to look in the books of any company. I think its the only way the government has SOME regulation over the corporations. It doesn't hurt, unless you can prove me otherwise. I mean I think its better than finding out there is a scandal and causing citizens to be concerned. |
| Edited by - Skyhawk on 08/19/2004 01:15:36 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 01:51:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skyhawk
Also, with the whole Board of Directors and the people way up high. They do whats in the best interest of the company, and that involves profits and expansion. I recently was watching a documentary about corporations...and they were interviewing former CEOs and they were saying how they were acting in the best interest of the companies, even if it meant going against their own moral standings.
As a CEO, working against the interest of your company, for the benefit of somebody else could also be illegal (Not an expert on business law. Anybody?)
quote:
Canadian drugs were selling down in the states. Of course, American drug companies started complaining about this issue saying how it is lowering their profits. I think this is a good indication that the prices of prescription drugs are high in the USA.
And that free trade is a good thing. Of course the people of the American companies will complain, as it will hurt their companies profits, which is their responsibility. The availability of affordable healthcare in the US is/should be the responsibility of the American government.
(But when you have presidential elections depending on bribes, you'll never know what will happen)
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 08/19/2004 01:52:14 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 10:52:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian drugs were selling down in the states. Of course, American drug companies started complaining about this issue saying how it is lowering their profits. I think this is a good indication that the prices of prescription drugs are high in the USA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that free trade is a good thing. Of course the people of the American companies will complain, as it will hurt their companies profits, which is their responsibility. The availability of affordable healthcare in the US is/should be the responsibility of the American government.
(But when you have presidential elections depending on bribes, you'll never know what will happen)
It should be noted that these drugs being bought from Canada (and other places) are the exact same drugs made by the exact same companies that we pay so much more for here in the US. We are not talking about generic versions.
England, Canada, Ireland, ect.. have controlled drug prices. Which would indicate that the companies selling the drugs STILL make a profit selling the drug at reduced prices in those countries.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/19/2004 10:53:46 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 20:29:21 [Permalink]
|
Well, documentaries aside, there are all sorts of corporations out there doing neighborhood outreach programs and charity work which nets them nothing but good will. The company I work for has people spend many hours, every year, on the clock, dealing with a local diabetes walk and also the damned United Way stuff. This results in little but brass plaques and hearty handshakes.
Acting in a corporation's "best interest" obviously involves something more than just the bottom line. Despite what beskeptigal said above, the idea that board members and CEOs will always choose monetary profit over other concerns is the black-and-white view of the situation. It cannot (and is not) that simple. The non-tangible benefits - in terms of free publicity and lots of brass plaques - to a drug company that sold life-saving drugs at just 1% over cost would be enormous.
The assumption here, of course, is that no drug company is doing so right now, but I really have yet to see non-judgemental, just-the-facts evidence of the extremely high profit margins which the pro-pharmaceutical-reform folks claim exist. Even the Public Citizen link (on page one) verged on the hysterical (and my browser is now reporting that the full article is 404).
Is there a report on these matter which does not rely on emotional hot-button words in its introduction to set the stage for what it wants to demonstrate? We're talking serious "poisoning the well" crappola here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 02:49:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...Acting in a corporation's "best interest" obviously involves something more than just the bottom line. Despite what beskeptigal said above, the idea that board members and CEOs will always choose monetary profit over other concerns is the black-and-white view of the situation. It cannot (and is not) that simple. ....
I agree, despite whatever I said to the contrary. I most certainly don't think there is a black and white here. Isn't that what I said in my previous post? quote:
One thing I see over and over in these kinds of discussions is the black and white world. You just can't boil these things down to such simple explanations or statements.
On the other hand, though, the corporate track record has some pretty nasty incidents on it.
Tobacco hazard cover up comes to mind.
Actually, my experience with drug hazard cover ups and less than truth in advertising by drug companies indicates they don't sit around the board rooms discussing ethics very often.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/20/2004 02:54:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 07:23:31 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal, it was the very next lines after what you quoted of yourself above which were rather starkly black-and-white:quote:
Drug companies would go for profits over people if left to their own devices, I don't care how many grand babies the CEOs have. That is the nature of corporate structure.
[Shrug] Doesn't really matter. My point was that aside from cover-ups and advertising lies, any single drug company which exists today could win massive amounts of kudos - and even more customers and higher profits long-term - by 'fessing up to whatever "extraordinary" profits they're making now, and selling life-saving drugs at more reasonable prices. But even with all the crap being thrown at the general industry, not one of the companies seems willing to take such a bold step.
One reason might be that the "extraordinary" margins simply don't exist. Another might be that there is a massive global conspiracy among all the drug companies to keep prices artificially high.
I think reality necessarily lies somewhere in the middle, but I can't find it among all the baloney spewed by extremists on either side. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2004 : 01:40:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
beskeptigal, it was the very next lines after what you quoted of yourself above which were rather starkly black-and-white:quote:
Drug companies would go for profits over people if left to their own devices, I don't care how many grand babies the CEOs have. That is the nature of corporate structure.
[Shrug] Doesn't really matter. .......
Clearly, I'm confused.
I have to put them in the dark gray but not quite black category for the moment. I've been angry with the drug research cover ups lately and it's clouding my objectivity. It puts me on the line if I prescribe a drug that has side effects the drug companies knew about but quashed the research. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 12:32:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
The pharmacuetical industry is the most profitabl in the world.
Good!
Which industry would you like to have as most profitable? Tobacco? Guns?
If you feel that the profit margin is to high, you are free to develop and sell cheaper products.
We could also get cheaper health care if those greedy physicians and nurses would take a pay cut.
Thanks for spamming the thread, bone head. If you have anything intelligent to say, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise feel free to keep your thoughts to yourself.
I think Starman was skeptical to your claim that the pharmacuetical industry was the most profitable in the world. I myself always thought that narcotics, arms, and oil was on top of that list. At least they top international gross product. That's what I have been told.
I think you're right he was skeptical but he could and should have presented his claim differently. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
