Anyone Know How Much It Would Cost To Enforce These Rules?

[Leilin]

Ah. Gotcha

[KittenAB]

I guess I should clarify what I mean by different formula when it pertains to generic drugs. What I mean is they use the same active drugs, but the pill may be a different color for example or some added inactive ingredient. Ibuprofen will always be ibuprofen, which is the generic, but the various over the counter pills you can buy will have different inactive ingredients.

Has a doctor ever told you "there is no such thing as an inactive ingredient?" Doctors, good ones, follow this strictly because of various other issues, all ingredients have an effect on the patient. So even a small change in the chemical compound requires going through the entire testing process again. Reinventing the wheel, in other words.

[Diapered Jason]

Has a doctor ever told you "there is no such thing as an inactive ingredient?" Doctors, good ones, follow this strictly because of various other issues, all ingredients have an effect on the patient. So even a small change in the chemical compound requires going through the entire testing process again. Reinventing the wheel, in other words.

You are not getting it. There is no change in the chemical compound between generics. Ibuprofen will always be 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)phenyl]propanoic acid. Seriously, all you have to do to change the formula of the pill is add red dye #5 or something or put it in capsule form instead of pressed crushed powder. All that is done by the FDA is actually to test if the drug is equivalent, which is a simple chemical composition test. Beyond that, there is no testing done. It does not go through the double blind trials, toxicology studies, and everything else again, because that would be redundant. And no, inactive ingredients, such as the materials that keep the drug in the pill, do not normally have an effect, unless there is a complication such as allergies, but this is very rare since they are not even absorbed by your system. We do not need to complicate this as this is very simple distinction that is widely accepted.

[Leilin]

Has a doctor ever told you "there is no such thing as an inactive ingredient?"

Errr... any doctor who said that shouldn't have a degree.

[drynot]

Isn't it kinda what the whole US economy and ideology is based on? You research and develop something that the public needs, sell it for a profit, reap the rewards. I know its kind of a simplistic view but wouldn't you be annoyed if you took all the time and effort to produce something and some schmoe comes along, reverse engineers your product, then proceeds to profit from your labour?

I am of the opinion that we wouldn't have hardly any of the life saving drugs we have today IF the companies that made them weren't profitable.....who would make something to sell for a loss? You wouldn't be in business for very long if you did.

[Diapered Jason]

You mention about expensive drugs, this is a very hot potato over here with the NHS.

Dr's can't prescribe any drug on the market, even if approved as treatment. A separate body, NICE, (you'll see the irony in this name in a bit), they look at the cost of the drug. These drugs tend to be 'end of life extenders', and unfortunately if it's going to cost £50k for a couple of months extension, with little improvement in life quality. The NHS will not fund it, it's harsh, but a line has to be drawn.

How come I did not see this earlier, but this is a good point. The only problem is some idiot here in the U.S. called them death panels and freaked everyone out. Now we can probably never have the ability to cut funding if we know you are going to die very soon, because it is politically impossible. Otherwise, that would be an easy 20 to 30% off the medicare budget for starters.

[Leilin]

Isn't it kinda what the whole US economy and ideology is based on? You research and develop something that the public needs, sell it for a profit, reap the rewards. I know its kind of a simplistic view but wouldn't you be annoyed if you took all the time and effort to produce something and some schmoe comes along, reverse engineers your product, then proceeds to profit from your labour?

The problem there is that the big pharma companies are frequently spending public money and resources to develop these drugs and then, in turn, selling these drugs back to Americans at a higher cost than what they are provided for anywhere else in the world. Considering the rather obscene profits that they make by doing this, it's unlikely that they're going to fail to turn a profit anytime soon.

I am of the opinion that we wouldn't have hardly any of the life saving drugs we have today IF the companies that made them weren't profitable.....who would make something to sell for a loss? You wouldn't be in business for very long if you did.

Then they should have no problem paying a fair corporate tax, which they do not, or creating these drugs without public assistance, which they do not, or charging US citizens the same rate that they charge others, which they do not.

[KittenAB]

Isn't it kinda what the whole US economy and ideology is based on? You research and develop something that the public needs, sell it for a profit, reap the rewards. I know its kind of a simplistic view but wouldn't you be annoyed if you took all the time and effort to produce something and some schmoe comes along, reverse engineers your product, then proceeds to profit from your labour?

I am of the opinion that we wouldn't have hardly any of the life saving drugs we have today IF the companies that made them weren't profitable.....who would make something to sell for a loss? You wouldn't be in business for very long if you did.

Actually, this is a valid argument in support of some patent laws, however, by holding patents for too long the actual effect is that innovation and competition is destroyed. The original patent laws held the patent strictly for a short time allowing the recuperation of costs associated with the development then opened it up to allow others the chance to improve the product. However, patents have now been extended to "infinity plus a day," to coin a phrase. Allowing the patent to be renewed any number of times and even inherited, thus you can give permission for someone else to take the patent on your death. There are other ways in which the patent inheritance continues as well, if it's a corporate owned patent it can be passed to those who buy out the corporation, for example.

As I said, the current patent and copyright laws are the perfect example of over regulation which is stunting economic growth as well as innovation. There does have to be some protection for those creating something, but extending it to prevent competition is detrimental to capitalism in so many ways.

The drug industry is only one of many examples of this. Look at the lawsuits Apple and Microsoft have filed for just using a broad idea that they used in the past. Look at the GIF image format and Compuserve still holding onto the right to sue anyone for using it, yeah, if you make an animated GIF and they decide they don't like you, they can actually sue you for it, as they have done in the past. Luckily most software companies are not this abusive, the Quake engine is released as open source whenever they create a new version, for example, which has lead to an explosion in 3D gaming engines in the industry. The automobile industry is also being harmed by it, it's why the US companies cannot compete with the new electric engines, they have to come up with a whole new electric engine to avoid the patent laws. In energy the same thing is happening, and it's why the oil companies maintain such strength in the market as they buy the patents to alternatives, as well as plastic alternatives, then bury the product while enforcing the patents.

There was even a company that put patents on products which didn't even exist and as they were developed they'd sue the developers of these products. Though I think they have been shut down finally, this does not mean other companies will not do the same, since it is possible and even still legal to do that. The effect in the drug industry just hits everyone and hits us hard. But instead of people accepting this they will find reasons to hate "big pharma," which these big companies only exist because of the patent laws being such a mess.

[drynot]

Then they should have no problem paying a fair corporate tax, which they do not, or creating these drugs without public assistance, which they do not, or charging US citizens the same rate that they charge others, which they do not.

You make a good point. However the market is going to support only what it can bear. US, and by extension most of us in the western world, can somewhat afford to pay elevated prices for our pharma. It certainly isn't the corporations' problem if the tax laws are so lax that they aren't paying their fair share though. The unfortunate fact is that some people will loose their lives because they cannot afford treatment.

I can't speak for everyone...however I am sure the majority of people out there would try to utilize every single tax loophole and favourable law in order to improve their own bottom line. It just makes sense. Big companies have scores of tax lawyers and accountants to make sure they save as much money and pay the least amount of tax possible. They are going to do whatever it takes to cover their own asses...

Really....without some sort of revolution...reality isn't going to change quick enough to save people.

[Leilin]

You make a good point. However the market is going to support only what it can bear. US, and by extension most of us in the western world, can somewhat afford to pay elevated prices for our pharma. It certainly isn't the corporations' problem if the tax laws are so lax that they aren't paying their fair share though. The unfortunate fact is that some people will loose their lives because they cannot afford treatment.

I can't speak for everyone...however I am sure the majority of people out there would try to utilize every single tax loophole and favourable law in order to improve their own bottom line. It just makes sense. Big companies have scores of tax lawyers and accountants to make sure they save as much money and pay the least amount of tax possible. They are going to do whatever it takes to cover their own asses...

Really....without some sort of revolution...reality isn't going to change quick enough to save people.

Firstly, the rest of the Western world pays, without insurance, on average, between 1/5 and 1/20 of what a person in the US pays for US developed Pharmaceuticals.

Secondly, it certainly is the corporation's fault that our tax laws are lax in reference to them when they lobby to keep them that way.

This is most definitely not a case of "what the market can bear." It is a case of what happens when a monopolistic system gets out of hand.

[nitrous]

The drug companies especially the ones that make drugs that people need on a daily basis to live can aford to lower their prices. Say you have a diabetic who needs insulin has to pay loads of money just for that life saving drug that they need every day to regulate their blood sugar. The companies give my cousin free samples but charge an arm and a leg for the stuff. If you change it around and substitute insulin for soda, millions of soda is sold not because it is needed because of the demand. Soda is sold cheep and inexpensive because they produce it in bulk and is sold in bulk. I know soda is fairly cheep to make but do you understand my point? If there are thousands of people that are going to need the insulin you make to live then you'll have a consistent profit. There for it would be economically and morally sensible to lower the price. But sadly it is not the case.

I also believe the government should do more to cure curable diseases around the world. Think about how many children around the world suffer from measles, polio, and malaria. Just think of the health and security costs if someone with those highly contagious, deadly inflicted it upon the people of the United States or The UK. A population that has not had contact with those diseases in centuries. We would be dropping like flies. We can cure those diseases around the world. The nations of the world have the money and the resources. To destroy these diseases would mean a better world for all.

I also agree that patents should have a short term life span. Furthermore Children should be given new drugs for minor things. When in the case of serious ailment in a life and death situation then all options should be on the table.

[drynot]

What you folks are describing is generally known as a socialistic society where folks care enough about their friends and neighbours to share the burden when it comes to issues such as health care and other social issues. Us Canadians enjoy the benefits of it as does most of western society. Americans, by and large, seem to fight this at every turn. I am NOT saying its a perfect system. Far from it. There are cases of horrible abuse of the system from both sides but it SEEMS like we, as a people and a society, want to keep it the way it is.

Lots of people go on and on about how healthcare in Canada is free. Well let me tell you it is far from it. I make a very good wage and I pay quite a bit in tax as a result. I'm not bragging but it's in the low 6 figures. Now you'd think I would have a big house....fancy cars..boats and all that cool stuff that comes with a good wage. Nope. My income taxes are quite high. However I also know that if I get sick, my meds will be provided and my other medical expenses will be covered. Like I said...its far from perfect but it SEEMS better than the system you folks have.

We've all heard about how Obama is a 'marxist' and is out to 'destroy America'. I know the way Obamacare was implemented ruffled more than a few feathers but isn't having access to healthcare much better than the alternative?

[Alexandra]

to borrow a qoute from Helder Camara “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

[lilJester]

Religion..... trying to destroy your animal instincts since its creation......

[Leilin]

What you folks are describing is generally known as a socialistic society

I actually wasn't. This is why I specified that the costs are what they are without insurance, even government provided insurance.

[Diaperedmaddi]

Ok so here is my 2 cents on what I was reading in the posts.

Yes oil prices are high in the USA. But in Canada we are paying around $1.18 a liter for diesel and around $1.15 a liter for gas right now in Manitoba. I would happily pay $2.5 a gallon or what ever you guys are paying down there. Unfortunately this is the cost of owning a car.

Socialized medicine is a wonderful thing. In Canada basically everything outside of elective surgeries ate covered by our health care. I pay about 35% of my pay check to taxes and I'm fine with that, cause I know if I get sick all I have to worry about is paying my normal bills. The government paid for my GRS and they paid for my Gull Bladder when it had to be removed.

Freedom of government is a wonderful but they do have their good points as well.

[Diapered Jason]

What you folks are describing is generally known as a socialistic society where folks care enough about their friends and neighbours to share the burden when it comes to issues such as health care and other social issues. Us Canadians enjoy the benefits of it as does most of western society. Americans, by and large, seem to fight this at every turn. I am NOT saying its a perfect system. Far from it. There are cases of horrible abuse of the system from both sides but it SEEMS like we, as a people and a society, want to keep it the way it is.

Lots of people go on and on about how healthcare in Canada is free. Well let me tell you it is far from it. I make a very good wage and I pay quite a bit in tax as a result. I'm not bragging but it's in the low 6 figures. Now you'd think I would have a big house....fancy cars..boats and all that cool stuff that comes with a good wage. Nope. My income taxes are quite high. However I also know that if I get sick, my meds will be provided and my other medical expenses will be covered. Like I said...its far from perfect but it SEEMS better than the system you folks have.

We've all heard about how Obama is a 'marxist' and is out to 'destroy America'. I know the way Obamacare was implemented ruffled more than a few feathers but isn't having access to healthcare much better than the alternative?

Obamacare really has nothing to do with socialized healthcare or single-payer systems. What it really is is a step towards the Swiss health care system, which is completely private, but it is regulated so everyone buys health insurance coverage and everything is covered including abortions. Those who cannot afford are subsidized by the government to buy insurance. Of course, this is only about coverage, which will lower cost in the US, but the Swiss health care system is still very expensive while at the same time, very effective. I have been thinking about this and I do not think a single-payer system would be effective in the US. Obviously, a free-market model, where you just by health care when you need it, would not work for health care, which is why we have the insurance system. We may need to start this over from scratch to fix our coverage problems.

Something still needs to be done to actually tackle the systemic cost of healthcare, or we will face another major recession here in the US. The huge problem here is health insurance is tied into employment, so this will hugely affect our economy and it does already.

[sarah_ab]

where is it $2.50 a gallon for gas? its $4.15 here!!!!!

[Diaper Mike 05]

Yeah, there is no $2.50 per gallon in the United States anymore.

And our higher pharma costs are also due to the fact the richer countries are paying the R&D of drugs, so we are subsidizing failure as well as success that other countries are not.

[Leilin]

Yeah, there is no $2.50 per gallon in the United States anymore.

And our higher pharma costs are also due to the fact the richer countries are paying the R&D of drugs, so we are subsidizing failure as well as success that other countries are not.

(Citation please)

[Diapered Jason]

And our higher pharma costs are also due to the fact the richer countries are paying the R&D of drugs, so we are subsidizing failure as well as success that other countries are not.

?

[Bettypooh]

The numbers spouted by big pharma don't reveal the whole truth Yes, that figure may have been "spent" but some of the work was done by private labs using federal grant money which was not applied to the figures, some may have been done by one of their own subsidiaries so they were actually paying themselves and losing nothing, and some of it may have been an estimated cost taken from a larger program as a whole. To know the truth you have to look deeply, and once you do you will understand how they 'play the game' to maximize their profits by making the costs appear as high as they can. "Money Driven Medicine" is a book that needs to be required reading on this subject, just take your expensive heart medication first because you're going to be shocked at what you find

Bettypooh