It costs 800 million to bring a drug to market. 7 out of 10 of which don’t make a profit. Countless others are left on the roadside during discovery (though after costing quite a bit of money).
So, as has been said countless times, while the second pill may cost only a penny to make, the first one cost quite a bit more.
Oh, I completely agree-I personally think health care SHOULD be a right. I was just trying to explain the semantics, that he didn’t even get that right.
pervert, by now you should know that I’m a “she.”
So what else are “rights”? I’m not being snarky, just curious.
Health care. I assume food, shelter (I’ll leave out oxygen…). Education?
What else?
And what implication does this have. If something like health care is a right, who pays for it?
And to follow up, if it health care is a right and the government pays for it, does the government pay for everyone’s health care, or just those who can’t afford their own?
I guess I think it’s a nice sentiment, and I agree with it on that level. But, I just don’t see it being a real world solution.
I certainly would not presume to speak for anyone else. By the formulation I laid out earlier breathing is certainly a right. Given that you can do it without my help. Oxygen, (or air at least) for the most part, could be considered a right. But only because it is so ubiquitous.
Not if those pills cost you millions.
Doesn’t more need mean an easier time convincing others that the need exists? If we have 20% of the population in abject poverty, wouldn’t that be pretty obvious? When it is .02%, it is probably less so. No?
I did not mean to suggest that more need would automatically create more donations. I was simply suggesting that more need might make it easier to make a case to potential donatees.
Your right. I appologize.
Personally this issue is a toughie for me. I have worked in a pharmacy for only a year, but seeing some of the people in there both made me feel bad for them and made me repulsed at to whom my tax dollars were going. Not good to have those thoughts and I realize it makes me less of a good person for having them. Many of the people I felt compassion for though were the older ones that were retired and could not afford Rx insurance, and were paying hundreds of dollars in cash for 1 or 2 prescriptions.
I also plan on getting into the drug research field, and know how much it costs to develop drugs. Like a crapshoot sometimes. I know the businesses are in it for the money, and development wouldn’t happen for lack of it.
I am torn- between wanting some sort of system developed in which some medications are avalible cheaply, and wondering why everybody feels that they are entitled to something just because it exists. I love reading these threads though it pretty much just makes me aware of how torn I am between both sides.
I agree with all of your sentiment except this!
My parents (teachers) always told me I could be whatever I wanted as long as it wasn’t a teacher. My kids can be whatever they want except for a scientist!
I guess I just don’t buy that all that drug company profit goes back into research. This isn’t a medieval monastery staffed by pure-hearted men of science who want nothing more than to shed new light on the medical arts. It’s a business, and just as much money goes into market wars and bribing doctors to prescribe your drugs instead of another brand and six-figure salaries for your execs who probably don’t know a thing about medicine but know a lot about jet-setting vacations and drugs not prescribed by a doctor or available over the counter. There is just no excuse for charging thirty dollars for a single pill, I don’t care how much research goes into it. Charge a reasonable price and maybe people won’t have to rely on the taxpayers to get their medicine.
And national health care IS a real world solution for most of the industrialized world. It amazes me how Americans (of which I am one) think that socialized medicine is some pipe dream castle in the sky when we can look across our own border and see it in action.
Hehe. I am not in it for the money, but I cannot say I am displeased with the conservative numbers given by the Occupational handbook for the field I plan on getting into. I won’t ever make 100k, or even get all that close, but 2/3 is good enough for me. 
Can you explain this? Most of the arguments I’ve heard were at least reasonable on this point. Are you really saying that if I spend $40 dollars to make a pill it is still unreasonable to charge $30? Is that really what you are saying? Or did your hyperbole get away from you?
Well, the POV discussed in the OP doesn’t really surprise me, considering that some folks feel that “[p]eople do not inherently deserve to have jobs. Or medical care. Or food. These things, and more, are great when you can afford them, but if not…I should have to pay for their shares? Bullocks.”
Life saving medication is neither a ‘right’ nor a ‘luxury’. I suppose the closest I can come is that its a privilege, granted to those who can afford it and to those who can’t by virtue of being citizens of the US. Its certainly not a luxury if you require it to live. Nor is it really a right…nor do I think it SHOULD be a right.
Explain to me this then: If its such a great business, with profits coming out peoples ears, blah blah blah, why does the US have fewer and few companies willing to create new drugs every year? I would think the fat cats who know nothing about medicine but who love profits would be climbing over each other if it was such a sweet deal as you make it out to be.
uhuh. And if it cost my company $100 million in research, development, etc to get that product tested and to the market I should just take a loss as well so that its cheap for you…right? Hell, why not have the government simply take over all medicine production and research and development companies (those few left in the US) and then sell the pills at a loss instead? Then we can move on to those other pesky capitalist industries (you just KNOW they are in it to, gasp, make M O N E Y!!) and next thing you know it will be like paradise on earth here!
-XT
How sad to have so much sarcasm when you say that. If you had walked into my father’s grocery store, you wouldn’t have gone away hungry. That’s because he knew what being really destitute was like.
For those who are employed, we pay much of their health care by paying higher prices at the stores and dealerships. We do it for each other. And the money that could be used in prevention goes to treat the illness. Those who can’t afford insurance will still need care from government and society.
I don’t want to be the sort of person who is unaffected by another’s pain. I’d rather live simply myself than live in a nation of sociopaths.
If your father’s store gives out free food on the same scale as the free medicine being discussed here, he would go out of business in just over four seconds, so the comparison is just a bit misleading. We’re not talking about a loaf of bread, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
The large companies that can afford to give out huge numbers of free medicine. All of the major medical research companies have policies that state that no one will go without their pills because they can’t afford them. These tend to be your larger companies, as small pharma/biotech companies usually don’t actually HAVE a product to give out, and if they do, the company is likely on a razor’s edge of going out of business. The policy tends to be underpublicized because no one wants this to be taken advantage of. But, a quick google search pulls this up:
http://www.thebody.com/afford/free.html
So, the companies are not unaware of their responsibility, and it is taken seriously. But, to bring it back to the OP, the drugs are a luxury because the companies that invent them are not, in my opinion, obligated to do this. But, you’re world without sociopaths is also going to be without medicine because when a cap is put on how much a pill can be sold for, as has been suggested here, no one is going to make them.
But it doesn’t take $40 to make the pill. If it did, I would agree with you that charging even $80 would be reasonable - 50% markup is pretty standard in the retail world. But a whole bunch of that $40 is spent in marketing and advertising on prime time TV with 90 second spots and paying people to walk into my doctor’s office and hand out free pens and tissue boxes and coffee mugs and paper pads and mouse pads and calculators and clipboards - all of which have the product name branded on them. And no, we don’t know the numbers, 'cause certainly the accounting departments of pharmaceutical companies won’t tell us. But they are not insignificant costs. *Those *are the costs I resent having to pay for in a pill.
Research and development? Fine, I’ll pay for that.
Cost of materials and production? Fine. I’ll pay for that.
Advertising and pens? Screw that. Publish your results in a good medical journal. Make your medication known in the PDR and downloadables. If it’s a good product, it will sell. Stop badgering my doctor with personal meetings and let him reduce his patient waiting time. Stop trying to sell me drugs I have no need for or knowledge of during Lost. Make a good, affordable product and I’ll be happy to buy it.
The food = drugs argument is disengenuous. There’s a lot I can do to control my food bills. I can stop eating out. I can shop at Aldi. I can by ground beef on sale and cook it 130 ways till Sunday and forgo the fillet. I can eat beans and rice. I can go to the food pantry when things are really bad.
What are **jsgoddess’s **options for her husband’s meds? Buy them (expensive) perhaps buy generic if it’s available (slightly less expensive) or go without. There are very few options for some illnesses. Few options + paying for printed paraphenalia = cranky WhyNot.
I’ll agree with a previous poster that the shilling of medicine to doctors is dispicable. But, if you notice, most of the advertising is for drugs that are not “essential”. Prilosec, viagra, etc. These are drugs that people have to be made aware exist, so that they can go to their doctor and ask if it is right for them. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of any truly life saving drugs that are heavily advertised; cancer drugs and such sell themselves.
And the point of advertising is to increase the number of people who buy the drug. The more people who buy it, the lower the cost can be made to make a profit.
If only 100 people in the world have disease X, which is cured by drug Y (which will cost 800 million to bring to market), then those 100 people are going to have to pony up quite a bit of cash.
The comparison to the retail world is disingenous also because we have a 20 year patent issue in drugs. By the time something comes to market, you generally only have 10 years left on that patent. After that, there is little profit to be had. They have 10 years to make all the profit that they are ever going to make.
I think we’re obligated whether the person “worked” for it (whatever the hell THAT means) or not. If you want it, and you need it to live, there should be some sort of social program that can pick up the slack if you can’t afford part or all of the cost.
Health care is not a “luxury”. This was a poor word choice by Crafter Man.
However, no one has a right to health care. If you want it then you need to buy it, just like everything else in our society. Food and shelter are certainly more important to living than health care. We expect people to pay for these things as well.
Would you mind answering my earlier question? If everyone is entitled to whatever he needs (please rephrase that to more closely match your opinion. I acknowledge that it is only the way I hear it), what are those people for whome there is no cure entitled to? Surely they need even more resources than those for whom a cure exists. Are they or are they not entitled to coerce much of the medical infrastructure into researching their disease?
But this I understand. I don’t agree that so much of pills costs is really advertising nor that advertising is unnecessary. But at least I can see where you are coming from. The question I asked was directed at a specific comment that continuity eror made. Specifically “here is just no excuse for charging thirty dollars for a single pill, I don’t care how much research goes into it.”
And in case anyone missed it, the point I was trying to make is that it is possible to overreach in one’s rhetoric and make statements which are quite silly when examined more closely. Perhaps the statement which started this OP could be one of these?
I sympathize, truly I do. I could tell you stories about my family’s medical history. I would only point out that your assertion about paying for advertising more than research has not been proven. Also, that there are diseases for which a little more money will do nothing. Plug “no options” into your equation and see where you get.