Freaky, would you be able to provide anything more than simple assertions to back up the ridiculous claim that developing and testing effective cures for diseases somehow costs less than getting people to buy the drugs that could save their lives. Have you ever seen a drug commercial? Not exactly filled with those expensive special effects, was it? Letting people know about medicines that could help them, even save their lives cannot possiby be considered pointless. Even if it were, without advertising money from drug companies, who would fund medical journals, or are those pointless as well?
Also, the drug companies don’t see much spillover benefit for their other products, as it is for some reason illegal to mention the drug’s name, the company’s name, and what the drug does in a commercial. Only two of the three can be mentioned. I’ve noticed that Merck slips its name into the phone number, but it doesn’t actually say that they make it.
As for the Germans being Nazis, I don’t know where you get the belief that the German people currently support fascism, but it strikes me as being blatantly false. You are right that it cannot seriously be considered slander, though. As everyone knows, slander involves the spoken word only. Your statement might fall under the category of libel, however. On the subject of things everyone knows, Ukulele Ike is a guy. Duh.
Satan pretty much hit the nail on the head. People think that because you charge 5 dollars for a pill that costs .05 to produce is inherintly unfair. There is more behind the pharmacuticals than simply making the pills. If Al Gore really believes that the medicine business is unfair, he should go into the business himself. I never intended to be called a Nazi.
Yeah, I don’t get where in that anyone could possibly get the implication that you have any Nazi tendencies at all. Or German tendencies for that matter. Don’t the Germans have one of those heavily regulated socialized health-care systems that people like Gore want to model ours on? Please explain where you drew this conclusion from, FF.
Waterj2: I’d like you to listen closely know. It was a joke. You see where I started the next sentance with “Seriously”? That’s the equivelant of saying [/joke]. Got it? And if I call you a goat-felcher, I probably don’t actually think you felch goats. I didn’t think I would have to explain that but apparently you’re a bit humor impaired.
Sneevil: “felch freely”? Heh. That’s pretty good. But unfortunately it’s not original, I coined that one in an earlier thread.
And I actually feel pretty good about myself. Because I’m FreakFreely, and I’m cool like dat.
threemae: I guess you weren’t paying quite enough attention, because Satan also said that he thinks CDs are over-priced.
In competitive markets the price of a good is equal to its marginal cost, that is the cost of making one more unit of the good.
This has important implications for social welfare: net benefits to society are maximised when the last unit produced costs as much to make as it yields benefits.
In some industries there are substantial fixed costs (drugs, music, software etc). In these “decreasing cost” industries it is not possible to charge a single price at marginal cost and still make a buck.
To make a buck, firms in these industries have to charge above marginal cost, and to do so they must have some market power (ie it can’t be a competitive market).
The downside of this is that the price of drugs is too high for efficiency and that firms make monopoly-like returns.
The upside is that you get more research and entreprenuerial activity in what may be pretty important areas.
Where you draw the line is a trade off.
Drug companies will (not surprisingly) claim that anything less than monopoly rights in perpetuity will kill innovation. Take this with a pinch of salt.
Remember that intellectual property rights enjoyed by drug companies are largely government created anti-competitive privileges, not market features. The degree to which these protections are warranted is a matter of legitimate discussion.
Let’s see… He was wrong by a magnitude of 30 times… That’s a nitpick? :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, three weeks, five days, 18 hours, 14 minutes and 29 seconds.
3510 cigarettes not smoked, saving $438.80.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 4 hours, 30 minutes.
Yeah. It’s a nitpick. He could have been wrong by ANY amount because ‘a nickel’ was an allegory for ‘a small amount which I do not know precisely’. An allegory is a lie which points at the truth. It is commonly used in English, both spoken and written. For instance, if I say “you are dumb as a stone”, that’s not what I really mean.
allegory: “A literary, dramatic, or pictorial device in which characters and events stand for abstract ideas, principles, or forces, so that the literal sense has or suggests a parallel, deeper symbolic sense”
or “A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.”
simile: A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in “How like the winter hath my absence been” or “So are you to my thoughts as food to life” (Shakespeare).
(Or, “you are dumb as a stone.”)
However, the five-cent CD mentioned earlier was neither of these. At best it was hyperbole (another literary form, but I’ll leave that definition up to you). And at worst it was propogation of ignorance and a falsehood.
Well, I think we’ve pretty much hijacked this thread as far as we can take it, so I probably shouldn’t continue this argument. But I just can’t pass up the chance to hit a man when his guard is down.
andros sez:
Jeez, you say it that way and I start to think iampunha is part of some global conspiracy.
Ok, I still think it was a nitpick, though not for the same reason as tcburnett. I think it was a nitpick because he took one small part of iampunha’s analogy, and countered that. Rather than countering the point of the analogy itself. It would be like if I were to use the analogy of building a house to explain economics, and then you point out the superiority of bricks over wood.
Don’t get me wrong Satan, I think you were entirely right about what you said. It just seemed like you weren’t arguing against the point he made, but rather a small, inconsequential part of it.
Well, since you referred to defending the status quo in the American health care system as being German, I’ve given up on trying to use reason when interpreting your posts. To steal a bad joke, they probably read better in the original Russian. I also notice that you won’t back up any of your claims, but instead try to mock the rest of us. Seeing UncleBeer rip you to shreds will be amusing, where is the event being held?
I think the word you are looking for is “exaggeration” or “hyperbole”. Andros explained the difference quite eloquently. Please learn the subject before giving the lecture, okay?
Introducing blatant exaggerations in this context is dangerous. Should our lawmakers consider “allegorical” figures when crafting regulations for the drug industry. I can just see how this would go:
You (arguing before Congress): “Viagra costs .30 per pill to make."
Congressman: "Then it should sell for abotu .40 per pill.”
Speaker: “All in favor?”
Congress: “Aye.”
Speaker: “Any opposed?”
(muffled silence)
Speaker: “Then it’s law.”
… later …
Congressman: “The company claims that you were off by a factor of thirty. They just went out of business.”
You: “Stop nitpicking, I was just being allegorical.”
And when I say you are dumb as stone, I’m simply insulting stones.
I never said it was german to defend the status quo. I was saying that they sounded very conservative. Often times, in liberal terminology, a conservative is referred to as a fascist. Fascism is often associated with germany. Now, fascism actually came from Italy with Mussolini. But if I said “Your post would’ve sounded better in it’s original Italian”, it wouldn’t have been as funny. (if it was funny in the first place)
I never saw you back up any of your claims either.
Yeah, it’s fun mocking you. You should try it some time. All’s you need is a mirror and a good imagination.
Great Debates, as soon as he gets back from vacation. And I’m even studying up for the occasion! Hell, it’ll be amusing for me whether I get ripped to shreds or not. (though the former does seem a bit more likely)
Don’t you think you’re taking this just a bit too seriously?
If you had been paying a wee more attention to the rest of the post, I spoke in an allegory (God, I hope I got that right! Andros? ;)) that there is more that goes into the cost of drugs than making a pill by showing there is more than goes into the (considerably more than a nickel) cost of a CD than just the manufacturing.
Above, no less than two people commented on what I said about that.
If anything, you are the person who is stuck on a small part of a post, with all due respect.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two months, three weeks, six days, 1 hour, 59 minutes and 40 seconds.
3523 cigarettes not smoked, saving $440.41.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 5 hours, 35 minutes.
What claims were made that didn’t get a cite? Most importantly, what uncited claims received dispute? None, as far as I know.
YOU, however, made the outrageous claim that R&D for medicine costs practically nothing in comparison to advertisement. Several people disputed that (some indirectly). So either show them that their disputes are wrong, or shut the flying fuck up. And if YOU want to see THEM back up their posts, then maybe you should give them some reason to do so. As of yet, you have not (saying “Well, YOU didn’t show proof, either!”, and then STILL not showing any proof for your side, is hardly the way to go).
Except that it wasn’t just “a nickel”, it was “a nickel, if that.” If it were meant as an “allegory,” it would have been “CDs cost what, about a fucking nickel to make?”
As for drug company innovations, I have one of them right here. It’s a paperweight with their name on it, with a large model of a dust mite floating in it. It came in over the transom with a gadzillion samples, even more pens, a nice desk clock, ten shitty desk clocks, a hundred classical CD samplers, a detailed model of the human knee, a blanket, and an invitation to dinner at GolSwanky’s with a small honorarium. They’re nice people.
One of the biggest problems with the pharmaceutical industry is this:
They charge more for their products in the US then they do in other countries. That’s part of the problem. Because they know the bulk of US citizens have insurance and that they will PAY the big bucks for the drugs even if they DON’T have insurance.
Another concern that I have and other US citizens are tapping into is the fact of this: My dog has allergies. She takes a drug that in Canada would cost a PERSON about 10.00 (US) a month. For my dog it costs 20 (US). For me it would cost 60 (US). It’s the same drug. But it costs a different amount depending on who is using it and what country they are in.
US drug manufacturers haven’t equivocated over this. They admit that prices are different, higher, here in the US, because they say we are willing to pay it. They “use” us to pay for the R/D on the drug.
I have no problem paying for the research and devolvement of drugs. What I resent is the fact that I pay for it and the world at large gets to benefit and I get gouged.
BTW… my dog and I share the same prescription for anti-histamines. But I put it all under her name because it’s cheaper. She barks that this is okay. Isn’t she a sweety? Gotta love that pup!
Um, at least for Canadians, I think that the reason drugs cost less is because the Canadian government, which runs the health care system, sets drug prices. In fact, the Canadian government has refused to pay for some newer drugs, forcing patients to use older, less efficacious and most importantly, cheaper, alternatives. As a result, many Canadians travel to the US and pay for the new drugs out of their own pockets.
Is it not just as likely that Americans pay a higher price for a given drug so the drug company can offset lower profits in countries with socialized medical systems?
**
I’m gonna want to see a citation for this. If a US drug company exec has actually said anything remotely like this, he’s been sampling his own product too much. It’s not that we are willing to pay for it, it’s that others refuse to.
Oh, and on the pet/human cost differences. Most people will not spend as much on drugs for Fido as they would for little Billy. Therefore, if the company wants to sell a drug for use in animals, they are going to have to charge less. They are making less profit on sales for pets, but, less profit is better than none. Again, US human consumers must pay a premium in order to make up for lower profits in other markets.
Well, that can get to be a very long reply. He’s a silver-spoon-in-his-mouth-from-day-one man, who claims to understand the pain of the common man. He is now saying that he will take the big bad drug companies to task on ouuur behalf. Yeah, like he is really worried about what we pay for an aspirin.
This is more of a joke coming from Al, the man who’s family made their money from tobacco, who’s father took all 'dem dollars and stock from Arm and Hammer to be a good little senator (I know, they all do it…); but Al will stand up to those nasty big-money guys! Yeah, next he’ll invent sun light, and allow it to shine on us all.
And there’s a reason for that. In Mexico, one of the countries that people flock to in order to get Viagra for cheap, they have very few quality control regulations. In America, the pharm. industry is regulated up the yin-yang, especially with products that have more severe possible side effects. It costs a lot of money to follow those regulations (a lot of product must be disposed of because of a single mistake in manufacture). If you want lower costs, then tell your local congressman to abolish all these regulations.
Of course, if you want to do that, don’t complain when your bottle of medicine has a dead rat in it instead of pills. (Extreme example, I know).
A company doesn’t need profits. Profit is, by definition, excess money. Money leftover after production, after employing costs, after research, after all that is taken into account.
Ok, look at it this way, they wouldn’t sell the doggy pharmacuedicals or the drugs in Canada if they weren’t making a profit on it. They don’t need a certain amount of excess money. Therefor, they don’t need to balance profits. And how do you balance profits when there’s no amount that you have to get?
We have to do something about this, it’s fucking ridiculous. We can see that they’re making a profit in Canada. Therefor, we know we can lower it that far without keeping them from making a decent profit. Also, we can see from this that even with the money they spend on research taken into account, they’re still ripping us off. And you know what? They can do that. They can do that as much as they like unless we unify against them. They’re already unified against us.
That said, I think it’s disgusting what they’re doing. They’re taking advantage of us. Because united they stand, and divided we fall. If we all got together, we would get a much better deal. You need that drug. But they don’t need you to buy it, there’s plenty of other customers out there. But you’ll buy it from them at whatever price, you need it. I think it’s absolutely evil what they’re doing.
Yeah! The profit motive sucks! NOBODY should be making a profit off us! What a rotten selfish system! I have a better idea. How about everybody work for FREE! Then everything, all goods and services should also be FREE!
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What a great idea. Abundance would abound and everyone would be equally and treated fairly.