Pfizer loses nearly a BILLION dollars on drug R&D

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No, it just makes me siick that they prey on the sickets people to pay these high prices.

That's like complaining that the gas stations prey on the people who drive, or that mortuaries prey on the families of the dead.... duh!

Chemo patents take a drug called Zofran(sp?) to help ease nausea. The pill, when my Dad was taking it, cost over $30 a pill. $30 every few hours so you aren't trapped in the bathroom wishing you were dead.

My dad gets a shot of Luprin once/month to keep his cancer from spreading. It's $1k/shot. $1k/month is better than dead, he'd tell you.

I know these companies are in it to make money and i'm not saying they should give their product away, but they have no interest in helping people. Their only interest is the bottom line. Maybe they should cut back on the lobbyists and pass the savings on to use.

My mechanic has no interest in helping me. He's in it for the bottom line, to make money. Maybe he should stop taking out advertising space in the paper and pass the savings on to me.




I understand your frurstration with your dad being sick and all. And it would be great if they could lower prices. But when it takes an average of 10 years and $1B to get a drug to market, and when 80% of the trial drugs fail to get to market........ it gets expensive.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Quite the humanitarian.

Quite the realist you mean.

Your dad would likely be dead now if it weren't for these companies. And these companies wouldn't be around if they couldn't make money.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Quite the realist you mean.

Your dad would likely be dead now if it weren't for these companies. And these companies wouldn't be around if they couldn't make money.

He died many years ago.

And try reading my post. I know they are in it to make money. They also pull in huge profits (which I don't begrudge them), but they spend billions on lobbying so they can make even more money while they charge people more to R&D future products.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

He died many years ago.

Sorry.

And try reading my post. I know they are in it to make money. They also pull in huge profits (which I don't begrudge them), but they spend billions on lobbying so they can make even more money while they charge people more to R&D future products.

Their lobbying is only so they can continue making money and R&Ding new products. They are out to make money, but their intent is to make money off of helping humanity. They are here to find the cure to ever disease, make life longer, happier, and healthier. That is their goal in everything they do. Sure, it's driven by a desire to make money off of that, but you can't blame them for that either.

Would you rather someone make money off of bringing pain to others, or someone making money off of bringing good to others?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

He died many years ago.

And try reading my post. I know they are in it to make money. They also pull in huge profits (which I don't begrudge them), but they spend billions on lobbying so they can make even more money while they charge people more to R&D future products.

If they don't lobby then the fuzzy bunny lovers and tree huggers will shut them down. If we discovered tomorrow that the dried up bones of the northern spotted owl cure cancer I'd be out there with a shotgun tomorrow but the fuzzy bunny lovers and tree huggers would be fighting just as hard to keep them alive.


(of course this is an overly simplistic view of a very complex system, but oh well, it works)

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

That's like complaining that the gas stations prey on the people who drive, or that mortuaries prey on the families of the dead.... duh!

My dad gets a shot of Luprin once/month to keep his cancer from spreading. It's $1k/shot. $1k/month is better than dead, he'd tell you.

My mechanic has no interest in helping me. He's in it for the bottom line, to make money. Maybe he should stop taking out advertising space in the paper and pass the savings on to me.




I understand your frurstration with your dad being sick and all. And it would be great if they could lower prices. But when it takes an average of 10 years and $1B to get a drug to market, and when 80% of the trial drugs fail to get to market........ it gets expensive.

Not starting an argument here or picking on you in particular, but there's a difference between suppliers of goods that people NEED TO SURVIVE as opposed to suppliers of goods that people just use. I think drug prices should be lower...in spite of the money it costs to make them. Solution? either the government steps in to help with the R&D costs or they step in and help with the costs of the drug. Drug companies shouldn't just automatically write off the money they spend.

[DosEquis]

They wouldn't need to spend all that money on those kinds of drugs if we didnt eat food that was horribly bad for us all the time like a bunch of fat asses.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not starting an argument here or picking on you in particular, but there's a difference between suppliers of goods that people NEED TO SURVIVE as opposed to suppliers of goods that people just use.

Interesting, seeing as his original point was about a drug that helps with nausea (hardly something someone NEEDS TO SURVIVE).

I think drug prices should be lower...in spite of the money it costs to make them. Solution? either the government steps in to help with the R&D costs or they step in and help with the costs of the drug. Drug companies shouldn't just automatically write off the money they spend.

So, take money from everyone to help cover the medical expenses of the few.... hmm, I've heard that before.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not starting an argument here or picking on you in particular, but there's a difference between suppliers of goods that people NEED TO SURVIVE as opposed to suppliers of goods that people just use. I think drug prices should be lower...in spite of the money it costs to make them. Solution? either the government steps in to help with the R&D costs or they step in and help with the costs of the drug. Drug companies shouldn't just automatically write off the money they spend.

These drug companies spend billions of dollars on drugs that never make it to the market and they need to make their money back and fund future studies. Where are all the new treatments and prescription drugs coming from? America.. not the socialist nations that buy the products and sell them to affordable prices. If America started a drug program like Canada the research in America would by more than half overnight (as was done in Canada) and America makes up over 80% of the worlds research and development. How many people would be dead if these companies weren't so active in generation new treatments and prescriptions? That comes at a cost. Capitalism in the health care market is the driving force that is saving millions of lives each year, and American is in the limelight. Government intervention and profit controls is not the way to save lives and bring treatments to the poor. Eventually treatments and prescriptions drop in price. Imagine where the world's health care would be if we adopted a system like Canada.

The profits are what makes it worthwhile to take the risks to develop the drugs and treatments that save millions of lives.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 7960

... not one?

Where did you get this information?

the price you are charged has nothing to do with costs.

it is standard economics

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by JaJae

These drug companies spend billions of dollars on drugs that never make it to the market and they need to make their money back and fund future studies. Where are all the new treatments and prescription drugs coming from? America.. not the socialist nations that buy the products and sell them to affordable prices. If America started a drug program like Canada the research in America would by more than half overnight (as was done in Canada) and America makes up over 80% of the worlds research and development. How many people would be dead if these companies weren't so active in generation new treatments and prescriptions? That comes at a cost. Capitalism in the health care market is the driving force that is saving millions of lives each year, and American is in the limelight. Government intervention and profit controls is not the way to save lives and bring treatments to the poor. Eventually treatments and prescriptions drop in price. Imagine where the world's health care would be if we adopted a system like Canada.

The profits are what makes it worthwhile to take the risks to develop the drugs and treatments that save millions of lives.

What we really need are some damn international copyright and patent laws so we don't have to cover all the costs of medicine, textbooks, inventions of any sort, ect.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

Interesting, seeing as his original point was about a drug that helps with nausea (hardly something someone NEEDS TO SURVIVE).

And I was speaking in generalities...drugs in general. No, not all drugs are needed to survive.

Originally Posted by 7960

So, take money from everyone to help cover the medical expenses of the few.... hmm, I've heard that before.

So those few don't deserve to live because they don't have money?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Ok bare with me here, but if these companies want to develop new drugs for future profits, shouldn't their shareholders pay the bill rather than the end consumers?

Should I have to pay a higher amount for my Claritin so these companies can R&D another drug that will make them more money? Why shouldn't their sharholders shoulder the bill since it will most likely just be putting more of my money in there pockets in the future?

I think you hit on an important point here. The drug market is not like any other market. If Firestone loses a billion dollars on an experimental tire, they're not going to jack up the prices of their other tires 100% to recover the loss. People would never pay 100% more simply because the company is trying to recoup loses from elsewhere.

With drugs, it's different. People will pay whatever they have to for drugs. They have no choice. If you've got the key to life, people will pay whatever the hell you ask. Even gasoline, which people "need" isn't such a real necessity. I really can't think of any other good people buy that is a matter of life or death.

Maybe this difference is what warrants government intervention and makes looking at this merely through the view of the market inappropriate. Consumers don't really have a choice in this market.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Maybe this difference is what warrants government intervention and makes looking at this merely through the view of the market inappropriate. Consumers don't really have a choice in this market.

The only choice is pay or suffer/die.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think you hit on an important point here. The drug market is not like any other market. If Firestone loses a billion dollars on an experimental tire, they're not going to jack up the prices of their other tires 100% to recover the loss. People would never pay 100% more simply because the company is trying to recoup loses from elsewhere.

With drugs, it's different. People will pay whatever they have to for drugs. They have no choice. If you've got the key to life, people will pay whatever the hell you ask. Even gasoline, which people "need" isn't such a real necessity. I really can't think of any other good people buy that is a matter of life or death.

Maybe this difference is what warrants government intervention and makes looking at this merely through the view of the market inappropriate. Consumers don't really have a choice in this market.

so you suggest regulating the most regulated market in the country even more? brilliant!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by hsmith

so you suggest regulating the most regulated market in the country even more? brilliant!

What should someone do if they can't afford their cancer medication? Go back to school and try to get a better job?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What should someone do if they can't afford their cancer medication? Go back to school and try to get a better job?

no, silly, they should die!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think you hit on an important point here. The drug market is not like any other market. If Firestone loses a billion dollars on an experimental tire, they're not going to jack up the prices of their other tires 100% to recover the loss. People would never pay 100% more simply because the company is trying to recoup loses from elsewhere.

With drugs, it's different. People will pay whatever they have to for drugs. They have no choice. If you've got the key to life, people will pay whatever the hell you ask. Even gasoline, which people "need" isn't such a real necessity. I really can't think of any other good people buy that is a matter of life or death.

Maybe this difference is what warrants government intervention and makes looking at this merely through the view of the market inappropriate. Consumers don't really have a choice in this market.

people will pay almost anything for food, guess we should regulate the price of that too

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

people will pay almost anything for food, guess we should regulate the price of that too

anyone can make or sell food. if someone charges 200 for an apple, the consumer can easily go elsewhere for the same apple at a cheaper price. if phizer wants 200 a pill for some lif