Right, ok. There's no real problem at all. It's all just an anti-Republican smear campaign by the 'lie-beral media' etc. etc. ad infinitum, right Joe? I suggest you re-read the original article in this thread, because you've obviously forgotten what was said in it. And Dan, nobody is suggesting pharmaceutical companies stop making profits. The article isn't about making medicine cost price. It's about putting an end to the gratuitously OTT profits they make from keeping an entire nation by the balls by way of easily bribed, corrupt politicians (Republican OR Democrat).
Why was this not an issue in 1950? Answer: People lived a responsible life and did not feel that they had a right to something that did not exist. Did not feel it was the responsibility of their guardian government to wipe and powder their ass help them get dressed in the morning and go about their day. Now the medication is there and the people demand their RIGHT to have it AND have it cheap and easy. And you’re wrong Nursey in that it’s all about politics and lobby activities by the pharmaceutical companies. This being across the lines on both sides. The biggest lobby groups are not pharmaceuticals. To me a real crime is foreign lobby tell me why the hell a Chinese, French, Algerian, whatever lobbyist should have any influence whatsoever on a congressman or senator in the united states elected to represent the people in their prospective district? But you are a sheep who is told what is important to be concerned about. Unbeknownst to yourself you are being trained to on talking points for the Democratic Party in 2008 on the Health Care industry. This is where they want public concern to focus in the next year.
From the liberal Nation publication: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Nov_24/ai_110364123 ' Cheaper Drugs May Carry Higher Price; Critics say legalizing drug reimportation endangers consumers and paves the way for price controls and possible shortages and rationing of prescription drugs - The Nation Insight on the News, Nov 24, 2003 by James P. Lucier Find More Results for: "cheaper drugs outside us " Patients versus... CanadianDrugStore to... The Suffocation of... TRIPS, patents &... Byline: James P. Lucier, INSIGHT The pictures are political gold: gray-haired senior citizens boarding buses for a two- or three-hour trip to Canada to get their medications at half the price they pay in the United States. As often as not, or at least when the cameras are there, some eager politician is standing front and center vowing that U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers no longer will be able to gouge elderly constituents helpless victims, the politicians say who often have to choose between taking their heart medicine or eating dinner. Never mind that importing prescription drugs from Canada is illegal, shouldn't the price of drugs manufactured in the United States be the same here as in Canada? Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-N.D.) is a leading proponent of legislation to allow U.S. consumers to purchase prescription drugs in Canada and elsewhere abroad. "Americans pay 38 percent more on average for their prescription drugs than consumers in Canada," says Daschle. "Allowing this practice would help numerous Americans by allowing them to have access to lower prices." Daschle also claims that the pharmaceutical industry is "the most profitable in America," and "was 5.5 times more profitable than the average Fortune 500 company." He asserts that research and development (R&D) costs averaged only 11 percent of revenues, compared with 27 percent spent on marketing, advertising and administration. "Drug-industry profits are made at the expense of patients who cannot afford excessive drug prices," he says. Advertisement In these comments Daschle is quoting (without giving credit to) a controversial report by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch, who is suing the drug companies and calling them "the other drug cartel." According to Hatch, the pharmaceutical industry had a profit margin of 18.6 percent in 1989, with 85 percent of R&D coming from the National Institutes of Health and academic research (www.ag.state.mn.us). But a study by Joe Moser of the Washington-based, free-market, Galen Institute (www.galen.org) says the average profit margin of the pharmaceutical companies on the Fortune 1000 list in 2002 is 16 percent in line with other major industries. In fact the Fortune list shows that Coca-Cola had a 20 percent profit; Bank of New York, 19 percent; Mellon Financial, 33 percent; Microsoft, 29 percent; and Oracle, 24 percent. Even the Washington Post had a 10 percent profit as much or more than four of the 14 drug companies on the list. Nevertheless, drug companies can't seem to beat the rap for charging "too much" for drugs that didn't even exist until the drug companies invented them. That scenario led this summer to both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives passing legislation legalizing consumer importation of prescription drugs not only from Canada but from a host of specified countries, including France, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic and a number of others never noted as centers of pharmaceutical research. But these bills are awaiting final agreement on Medicare reform, which, as Insight goes to press, remains locked in a Senate-House conference committee. Republican conferees are seeking to cap Medicare spending at $400 billion, while the Democratic leaders want universal coverage regardless of ability to pay. In addition, Daschle said at a special news conference expressing opposition to the Republican plan, "We insist on drug-reimportation provisions." But will reimporting U.S. drugs from Canada or elsewhere really provide better access to medication for U.S. consumers? What proponents of importation really want to do, say critics, is to import price controls to the United States a regime that always has induced scarcity, rationing and the stifling of new investment and innovation. "The drug industry has high fixed costs but low marginal costs," Steve Entin, former chief economist of the congressional Joint Economic Committee and now head of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, tells Insight. "Once a drug is perfected, it costs very little to produce each unit. Drug companies can sell to foreign countries at a reduced price just above marginal costs, but it is not enough to pay for new research. The United States is the only country that allows companies to charge for research costs. Development requires a patent to allow exclusive sales until the cost of research is recovered. Reimportation of drugs [at a controlled price] trespasses on the patent rights which make development possible. It's just economics 101." Why are foreign prices for U.S. drugs so much lower outside the United States? Most foreign countries have socialized health regimes run by government boards that set arbitrary prices based on what they estimate is the manufacturing cost plus a small marginal profit. By excluding the huge development costs peer-reviewed studies published by Tufts University show an average of $802 million in research investment for each U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved product central planners abroad can give their citizens a free ride at the expense of U.S. consumers who foot the bill for research. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Next
So what you're saying is that they HAVE to have a monopoly in order to keep developing new products? I can't see how having a bit of competition is going to impoverish the most profitable industry on the planet to the point of not being able to afford to do this. But, let's say we have a compromise? Now let's take a look at how concerned the most profitable industry on earth is about developing effective new medications for the human race... HOWEVER... I've even heard of researchers who on discovering a cheap medication which could ruin enormous drug company profits having their work sabotaged (labs ransacked), dirty tricks campaigns to discredit their findings and even sinister threats from big pharma to cease their studies. This was the case with a naturally occurring antibiotic from an Australian tree bark which cured - not just *treated* but cured - stomach ulcers. Stomach ulcer medications (which cause physical complications from long term usage) are a lucrative money spinner, and massive profits would be lost a cheap, unpatented cure is available. You don't get in the way of 'the man' and his billions. As far as the 'safety concerns' of importing drugs: And finally... Big Pharma dangerous drug pushers
If you read the article it stated that drug profits were less than alot of other major industries. I profits can't be made then private investments will naturally not be made. While people in the US pay more for drugs more US companies than any other produce new and better drugs. It takes not only research and development and 4 phases of clinical trials to bring a drug to market with the chance that at any point the drug will not pass and all money spent on it being lost. Here is a short article from one of the medical schools in the US (Tufts): http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/120401BallooningCosts.htm The Ballooning Price Tag A closely watched study by Tufts experts shows the cost to develop a new drug has nearly tripled over the last decade, intensifying the national debate over prescription drug coverage. Boston [12.04.01] -- For over 25 years, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development has been tracking drug development costs -- providing some of the most closely watched and influential findings in the country on the pharmaceutical industry. Last week, the Tufts experts released their newest research on development costs -- a meteoric $802 million per drug -- and re-ignited the national debate over the high costs of prescription medicine. The new figure -- almost triple the $231 million estimate Tufts released in 1987 -- stunned many experts on the industry. But the Tufts researchers said rising costs throughout the process -- from initial research to clinical trials -- have pushed development costs ever higher. "Drug development is a very lengthy, technologically risky process," Dr. Joseph DiMasi -- the study's lead author -- said in the Washington Post. "A lot of money gets spent over a long period." According to Tufts experts from the Center, the average drug takes 12 years to develop -- and must overcome a very selective process. "The Tufts study says that of every 5,000 potential new drugs tested in animals, only five are promising enough to be tested in humans," reported the New York Times. "Only one of those five is eventually approved for marketing." More strenuous regulatory requirements have helped make the research and development process much more costly, says Tufts' Center Director Dr. Kenneth Kaitin. The expense of clinical testing has also ballooned. "Kaitin attributes the staggering increase... to the soaring costs of human clinical testing," reported the Boston Globe. "The size of clinical trials has steadily increased in the past two decades at the same time that volunteers have become more scarce. As researchers learn more about the potential hazards posed by drugs, companies are also required to run a growing battery of safety tests." The Tufts findings are expected to play an important role in the ongoing debate over the high cost of prescription drugs already raging on Capitol Hill. "The cost study has two major impacts," Kaitin told the Globe. "One is the public policy impact. It's important for policy-makers to understand what goes into bringing a drug to market. The second is the business impact. To recoup this kind of investment, companies need to fill their pipelines and increase output while reducing these research and development costs." Already, legislators are citing the findings as more proof that the nation's healthcare system needs to be revamped. Every year, Americans spend $117 billion to have three billion prescriptions filled. "The Tufts study drives home the need for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs," Democratic Senator Ron Wyden told the New York Times. "The cost of drugs for seniors at the pharmacy counter is growing even more rapidly than the cost of drug development for the manufacturers. That's why seniors go to Canada and Mexico to get medicines that should be available and affordable here." But Tufts' DiMasi said the study wasn't designed to stir up the political debate. "The pharmaceutical industry has been under fire for years," he told the Associated Press. "Politics didn't play a role in releasing the study."
I'll respond to Dan's post later, in the meantime... The biggest and most influential of course being AIPAC: Which is why you are the one who overlooks the unparalelled influence of the Israeli lobby as far as foreign pressure groups go, citing instead Chinese, French, Algerians as examples of the 'most powerful foreign lobbying groups' in the U.S.? How ridiculous. But then, your brainwashing programme has been purposely designed to make no criticism of Israel. And i do believe i already mentioned the problem of foreign lobbying groups in this post. It doesn't mean that the billions pharmaceutical companies spend in lobbying is any less of a problem. :
You got me all wrong Nursey. I just threw a few country names out there. Fact is none should have any lobby influence what so ever and Israel is included in that. It is laughable that Algerians would be a major influence because they are not. Coincidentally the French and Chinese are but like I said I was simply throwing names. Your not seeing the forest for the trees here. I agree Israel should not have any lobby influence and neither should any other country. These numbers are dynamic they change with the issues. Banking industry is the most profitable industry last I herd.
