A “luxury” is, by definition, something one can live without; the opposite is a “necessity”.
A “right” is something that is, or ought to be, guarenteed by the government. These come in two forms:
‘negative’ rights, which basically state that the government cannot do something to a person - like the right not to be imprisoned without just cause, take your property away without compensation, or invade your house without a warrant; and
‘positive’ rights, which are guarentees that the government will do things for citizens - provide services which are “necessities” for life or civilized life, like schooling, medicines, and food.
Now, the difficulty arises because while the ambit of ‘negative’ rights can be strictly defined, and doesn’t actually cost much in the way of money to provide (after all, it doesn’t cost money to refrain from imprisoning people or violating their rights, other than the administrative apparatus to ensure that violations don’t take place), providing ‘positive’ rights is comparatively open-ended and limitless in expense - after all, people need at a minimum medicines, food, education, loving caregivers when very old or very young, clothes, housing, etc. - and yet, the fear exists that society either cannot afford to provide everyone with a guarentee it will provide all of these, or that if it could, enough people would “free ride” as to drag the system down (after all, someone has to pay for all that stuff!).
In my opinion, a sharp distinction must be made between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ rights - with an absolute guarantee of ‘negative’ rights (example: the government cannot imprision someone indefinitely without trial); and a weaker and more contingent promise of ‘positive’ rights (ex: the government will provide necessities, but reserves the right to ensure that a person truly cannot provide them for him or herself, and will provide them only to certain limits).
I don’t justify it. If I’m going to die without it then I’m damn well going to do whatever it takes to get it. If it means taking it from you then I’m going to try, after all I’ve got nothing to lose if I die in the process right? You’re going to have to deploy enough of your resources to stop me or give me what I need. You can do a cost analysis of the problem and decide which option is cheaper for you.
The accounting games by which the the drug makers come up with this number have been exposed many times yet they keep repeating it. There is a book called the “$800 million pill, the truth behind the cost of new drugs” by Meril Goozner that claims a better esimate would be about a fifth of that. Here’s a quote from Shannon Brownlee’s( http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000010.html) review of the book.
When the drug companies are reporting 23 to 25 percent of total revenue as profits it’s time to do something. How about a windfall tax with the money going to subsidize Medicare or Medicaid as suggested here? (The $800 million pill: The truth behind the cost of new drugs)
If we capped drug company profits at two percent over the market and took the rest as a windfall tax they would still be a great investment and we would have some resources for the spreading the results around.
No, and no. If you cap the profits at 2% “over market”, whatever that means, you will not have taken into account the risk involved. Starting and runing a drug company is more than simply buying some stock in a proven organization. You have to put up the capital, do the research, then do the tests and retests for FDA approval, and finally, put the drug on the market. Only then do you find out if you have a profitable drug.
The point I’m trying to make is that you have to spend all of your investment capital before you find out if the product (if any, some medical startups fail you know) will even allow you to break even.
Isn’t the same thing true of a new car design? New software? Drugs are not alone in needed to be researched, developed and being proved safe and effective. And all that must be done before it can be marketed. At any point, the process may reveal a flaw which makes sales impossible.
First of all, new car designs aren’t quite as revolutionary as each and every new drug or biologic that hits the market; the 2004 Ford Explorer and the 2003 Ford Explorer are cosmetically different while Herceptin and Erbitux, which are both antibodies aimed at cancer cells are completely different from each other and required the standard investment to develop. I guess the hybrids would be the only thing that would approach the novelty of every single new product that the FDA approves.
Second of all, now that Toyota has developed the Prius, they can expect to make profits off the design, and relatively similar versions forever, or at least until something replaces the hybrid engine fifty plus years from now. Drug companies have about ten years before the patent runs out.
As a result, a drug company KNOWS that if it does not develop another drug in that interim they will have no income in ten years. So, they need capital to augment their income in order to fund the research for more drugs. What does a company that needs capital do? They issue stock. What do stockholders want? Profits.
No stockholders. No capital. No profits after patent runs out (not to mention that they needed stockholders to get the first drug out in the first place), no new drug, people will die.
(oh, by the way, I’m a Democrat. I’m probably coming across as a conservative Republican!)
If you really believe there is so much fat in these companies, then it’s a perfect opportunity for you to compete with them, cut the fat out of your company’s expenses, lower product costs, and drive these guys out of business. And, in the process make yourself rich. Have at it, and report back here on your results.
To piggyback off these comments. In the 80s and 90s biotech came into the scene to compete with big pharma. Filled with ideas for bioligical therapeutics and profits. Now, in 2005, nearly all of these companies are gone or enveloped because they could not become profitable. I can only, admittedly off the top of my head, come up with two profitable biotechs.
If you are going to try to start a company, there isn’t much riskier (and with less chanceof proift) than a drug company. Check out the stock price on Elan Pharmaceuticals (ELN). One person on their drug died. It’s not even clear if the death had anything to do with the drug (though it may have). The stock lost 70% of it’s value in about an hour a few weeks ago. Imagine a car company had to deal with that.
I can’t. It didn’t take much research to learn they’re tying up even the most trivial differences in patents. Even if they’re bogus they’ve got the money and lawyers to make the fight too expensive.
So, can you explain why these companies need 26 percent profits of drugs that started on government financed research? How does the clause in the last medicare bill making it illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices do anything more than line the pockets of the big 16 multinational drug companies?
When you’re defending the 30 dollar pill prices, you’re defending the seven dollars of profit while people die without them.
We used to have a collective outrage against such things in this country. We had laws against usury and gouging but somehow that has gotten lost. I’m all for inovation but not for greed being called inovation.
Of course. And this is why capping income from such activities is so disasterous. Take any communist system as an example.
Because they took all of the risk to bring the drugs to market. If you think that you could do it easier, simply get the rights to one of these drugs that the government so lovingly researches and bring the thing to market yourself. You will quickly find out that the study you looked at talke about “basic research”. Not drug development. The government did not develop wholly new theropies fully ready to apply to patients and turn the over lock stock and barrel to private enterprises for exploitation. They performed basic research (using taxes from some of those enterprises BTW) which sparked some drug company to begin develpment on a new drug. Development which was expensive, risky, and by no means required of them.
Finally, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the drug companies “need” 26% profits. I, at least, am simply suggesting that they have earned it.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, thank goodness for national healthcare. If not, my practice would have to settle for the meager reimbursement that HMOs pay for spine surgery versus our patients from Canada and England who are willing to pay 100% of our fees to get the surgery done now and save them months or years of pain and suffering. :rolleyes: Oh, and also they have more confidence that the US has latest technology.
While I usually don’t like to comment on issues of this nature. There is a side point your emails mentions that I wanted to mention. I want to comment that, an inordinate percentage of people claiming disability, fall into the catagory of mental health. A survey from 1999 shows a 62% rise in claims of disability for stress and chronic fatigue between 1992 and 1997. The number one reason for disability claims today is for mental and nervous disorders(of a psychiatric nature). My doctors have also stated that claiming mental disability is the easiest way gain government disability coverage-easier than most common disabilities such as heart disease, MS, MD or ALS. This is because little evidence is required, while exhaustive proof is required of other cases. Many of these people go on to lead normal lives…just without working.
While many of these nervous disorder and stress cases may be valid, I submit that many may not be, if there is no evidence. I suggest that if the government more carefully examines cases of this nature, they may be able to provide better support to those that need it.
Since I am here, I should note that by definition, “life saving medicine” is not a luxury, but rather a necessity. This is a necessity to maintain life.
I don’t think the term “luxury” is very useful here. Even if we use the word “necessity,” the question still remains by what right we can demand them of another. Fiveyearlurker, get your ass in gear with delivering that food and water to my house.
Yeah. Or it might be that you’d rather talk about someone else doing something that you don’t want to. Everything is easy for the man who doens’t have to do it himself.
Anyway, many of these expensive treatments are expensive not even so much because of profits, but because only a tiny number of people can afford them. Heck, some medicines and treatments can barely even be made or done, because only an infestimal portion of the populace can use them. Nowadays, we have treatments available even for most of those peoples. And any economist will tell you that economy of scale is a very real factor. Also, manufacturing techniques often get beter for any given drug, leading to more batches with fewer problems.
Actually, according to what I’ve been told by friends who are in the system (one on the government side, the other a recipient), such cases are evaluated very carefully. Almost everyone who applies for government disability for mental illness reasons such as those you mention gets turned down. Those who eventually are deemed qualifying have most likely gone through one or more levels of appeal and review, having to substantiate their needs.
Gov’t./Society are one and the same are they not. I maintain that it is not or should not be a function of gov’t. to provide…
In days past there were always those that could and were willing to provide assistance to those in need.