A Sane Canadian (No, Not Vroom)

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Hedo, there are elements of good and bad in both systems, honestly.

For example, is it really so important that billions of dollars of profits be made creating viagra, when people are dying of diseases in poorer countries because they don’t have enough money to fund research through later purchases?

Yes, I know, that is how markets work. I’m only pointing out that it is hard to say it is perfect if you really want to look into the social effects of the system as it is.

Drug companies deserve a fair profit. As does any other business. The fact that price controls put a limit on those profits does not mean that it is not profitable to do research and develop new drugs.

It isn’t an all or nothing situation in either case.

Would drug companies like to make more profit? Yes. Is research being conducted in Canada? Yes. Is more research being conducted in the US? Yes.

Nobody has a perfect system or a perfect solution at this time.

82

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I believe real reforms are necessary in the US system, but Canadian price controls are only effective because the US is footing the bill.

[/quote]

I guess that goes for Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain too?

83

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I believe real reforms are necessary in the US system, but Canadian price controls are only effective because the US is footing the bill.

I guess that goes for Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain too?[/quote]

To a certain extent, yes.

Consider the population of the US vs the population of the world and then consider the drugs and treatments that have been developed in the US in recent years compared to drugs and treatments developed in the rest of the world.

I have not seen the numbers in the last five years or so, but last time I researched this, the US was involved in far more of the research and development on a per capita basis than other countries.

It stands to reason because the US consumer pays more.

If anyone has any numbers that back this up or refute it please post. As I have said I have not seen the numbers in about 5 years.

84

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I believe real reforms are necessary in the US system, but Canadian price controls are only effective because the US is footing the bill.

I guess that goes for Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain too?

To a certain extent, yes.

Consider the population of the US vs the population of the world and then consider the drugs and treatments that have been developed in the US in recent years compared to drugs and treatments developed in the rest of the world.

I have not seen the numbers in the last five years or so, but last time I researched this, the US was involved in far more of the research and development on a per capita basis than other countries.

It stands to reason because the US consumer pays more.

If anyone has any numbers that back this up or refute it please post. As I have said I have not seen the numbers in about 5 years.
[/quote]

Alright then, let’s look at the drugs that were brought to market in the year 2002:

Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA, only 17 contained new active ingredients, and only 7 were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs used to treat similar diseases. Also, not one of these 7 drugs came out of a major US company.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/pstable.htm

Obviously that won’t be the case every year, but it’s still pretty sad that they didn’t come out with one innovative drug for the entire year of 2002. I’ll check a few of the other years and get back to you later today or tomorrow.

85

[quote]vroom wrote:
The US does not have a communist or socialist economy so the research is paid for by private companies. They assume the risk an in turn are compensated via profit. Cutting edge drugs are developed so investors can earn back a profit. This has benefit for the consumer and the investor. If the US controlled the price also, what incentive would the drug companies have to develop them?

Hedo, there are elements of good and bad in both systems, honestly.

For example, is it really so important that billions of dollars of profits be made creating viagra, when people are dying of diseases in poorer countries because they don’t have enough money to fund research through later purchases?

Yes, I know, that is how markets work. I’m only pointing out that it is hard to say it is perfect if you really want to look into the social effects of the system as it is.

Drug companies deserve a fair profit. As does any other business. The fact that price controls put a limit on those profits does not mean that it is not profitable to do research and develop new drugs.

It isn’t an all or nothing situation in either case.

Would drug companies like to make more profit? Yes. Is research being conducted in Canada? Yes. Is more research being conducted in the US? Yes.

Nobody has a perfect system or a perfect solution at this time.[/quote]

Vroom

It is a good point and no doubt the free market allows these drugs to be developed because a consumer will pay for them.

As to the poor needing drugs that they cannot afford, certainly it is the responsibility of rich nations to help where they can. Necessarily this would not only include the US, but Canada and the much of the west. It cannot fall to the US and it’s drug companies only.

I do see however, a free market that brings a lot of drugs out of research. I don’t see that happening in a price controlled regulated market.

86 
   I think the pharmaceutical companies are greedy bastards. Aids rates in Africa are incredibly high as you all know. According to an article I've just read it costs 12000$ us currency to purchase a year of aids drugs. How is a poor starving person who can't afford food supposed to get these drugs? Drugs aren't like impulse items, they are required by millions just to live and these bastards are making massive profits. India just sayed fuck you to these companies and are going against trademark laws regarding aids drugs. All the power to them. Zap branigan your notion of Americans paying for other countries drugs is quite rediculous.

Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes.

87

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes. [/quote]

Money never just sits there, unless you stuff it in you matress. If it’s in the bank, the bank loans it to the guy down the street to buy a house, or start a business. If it’s in stocks, then that capitol goes to buy more equipment, or give the guy down the street a job. If it weren’t for all those evil rich, most of us wuoldn’t have jobs. Poor people don’t have many employees…

88

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
I think the pharmaceutical companies are greedy bastards. Aids rates in Africa are incredibly high as you all know. According to an article I’ve just read it costs 12000$ us currency to purchase a year of aids drugs. How is a poor starving person who can’t afford food supposed to get these drugs? Drugs aren’t like impulse items, they are required by millions just to live and these bastards are making massive profits. India just sayed fuck you to these companies and are going against trademark laws regarding aids drugs. All the power to them. Zap branigan your notion of Americans paying for other countries drugs is quite rediculous.

… [/quote]

AIDS drugs in America may cost approximately $ 12,000 a year, but not in Africa. There are many, many programs that are giving these drugs away for low price and for free. Some pharmacuetical companies have allowed South African and other companies to make their drugs at a reduced or non existent license fee. This took a lot of arm twisting, but it is happening.

This is an excellent example of how America is subsidizing much of world.

Thank you for making my point.

89

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Off topic, what really annoys me about rich people is that they have billions of dollars just sitting there. They put it in banks and investment but its not actually being used. Why not make a law where there is like a 100 million doller max on personal wealth. The rest should go to research or charity. Obviously it will never happen but imagine the cash that could go towards noble causes.

Money never just sits there, unless you stuff it in you matress. If it’s in the bank, the bank loans it to the guy down the street to buy a house, or start a business. If it’s in stocks, then that capitol goes to buy more equipment, or give the guy down the street a job. If it weren’t for all those evil rich, most of us wuoldn’t have jobs. Poor people don’t have many employees…[/quote]

So simple and he doesn’t understand. I think I am wasting my time. Perhaps Babe the Big Blue Ox would understand?

90

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Zap branigan your notion of Americans paying for other countries drugs is quite rediculous. [/quote]

No paul, he’s actually quite right. These multinational companies make their own markets here in the US by advertising, etc., but the whole world benefits from advances in medicine which would not be available if it were not from the tremendous profits garnered from the American consumer. These companies live and die based on how badass their drugs are. They have squadrons of geeks in lab coats doing experiments because they got the money to do it from my grandma, and millions of other folks who pay an arm and a leg for prescriptions.

91

[quote]AIDS drugs in America may cost approximately $ 12,000 a year, but not in Africa. There are many, many programs that are giving these drugs away for low price and for free. Some pharmacuetical companies have allowed South African and other companies to make their drugs at a reduced or non existent license fee. This took a lot of arm twisting, but it is happening.

This is an excellent example of how America is subsidizing much of world.[/quote]

Zap, you are twisting facts a little bit to arrive at your subsidization conclusion.

I do understand that drug companies are forgoing some fees, but the alternative is that companies that don’t respect US patents make the drugs without any fees at all.

When you say subsidization, it traditionally means that someone is PAYING a portion of the costs. This is not truly the situation in this case.

It is hard to even suggest that profits are being lost, because without the reduced fees, there would be almost zero sales made.

If I lived in America, I’d be pissed at my drug companies for making my medicines available to the rest of the world at a lower price than it is made available to me.

Drug companies and their lobby groups have done a terrific job of spinning the situation to cast the rest of the world in a negative light while they are raking in record breaking profits.

They are damned smooth!

92

Wow, this thread certainly has gone in a number of interesting directions.

Zap/Lothario: You two seem to have pretty similiar opinions on the “US subsidation of the rest of the world” with regards to drugs.

I don’t think this should be suprising since the US has the highest concentraion of individual wealth of any industrialized nation(over 3 times that of the no. 2 nation which is Germany - from the UN Human Development Report, 1998).

I’m no economist, but seems to me that it’s in the US’s best interest to keep that wealth within the US, and even better is to convince other nations to give their wealth to the US raising your wealth even more. This means research and development in new technology/drugs to create new markets within the US. Gotta keep that economy going and keep that wealth at home.

It’s clearly in the US’s best interest to come up with new drugs and market them at home/abroad. You don’t want the…oh say…Swiss (tamiflu I believe?) taking your wealth by coming up with better drugs.

With regards to Africa, you can’t get blood out of a stone so no surprise that Americans pay more for their drugs - and subsequently come up with more new drugs than Africa does.

To get to the point, what are you looking for when you say “the US subsidizes the rest of the world with it’s drugs?”

Are you looking for acknowledgement, or a thank-you? If it’s a thank-you, don’t hold your breath. I’ve already indicated in this thread that it’s ridiculous to thank someone for doing something that is clearly in their own best interest to do.

Now, if what Zap said about American companies letting Africans make their patented drugs for next to nothing is true…these companies deserve a thank-you. The difference from what I wrote above is that these companies don’t have to do this (not really in their best interest), and if they do they should get the acknowledgement.

93

[quote]towner24 wrote:
To get to the point, what are you looking for when you say “the US subsidizes the rest of the world with it’s drugs?”
[/quote]

Hmmm… okay, let me help you. To answer your question, no we are not looking for a thank you. Remember how we got on this topic in the first place?

Zap said:
"Like it or not the US consumer is funding far more research per capita than the Canadian consumer.

I believe real reforms are necessary in the US system, but Canadian price controls are only effective because the US is footing the bill."

So, yeah, he’s got a point there. We Americans ARE footing the bill for research, it’s just simple logic. The fact that we don’t have consumer price controls allows the Pharmas to gouge us at the store just like the oil companies… something they can’t get away with in Canada. Therefore, the profit margins are lower in Canada for these international conglomerates, but it’s no big deal for them because they just make up for it in markets where they can get away with bending the consumer over.

US = subsidizing other nation’s drugs

Get it? Zap and I aren’t saying “oh feel sorry for us”, although it would be nice for a couple of cannucks to buy us a beer. :smiley:

94

lothario has it right. All I want is the beer.

I am not looking for a thank you. I am not footing the bill alone. I was trying to clear up some broad misconceptions here.

Rather than actually think and learn about the subject most people decided although the US is paying FAR more for drugs and clearly is providing much more of the drug companies revenue on a per capita basis than the drug companies get in a price controlled environment that the money has nothing to do with anything.

Please note it is not where the research is done, or where the company is based, it is where the money is coming from that I am talking about.

Much research is being done overseas and many drug companies originated overseas, but the US market is fueling the research and profit.

If the US were to institute price controls similar to Canada much of the money would dry up.

The drug companies would in turn depend much more on government grants for research. That means more taxes out of our pockets. Not a good situation in my capitalistic, freemarket eyes.

As to vrooms Africa point, I have no idea what he is talking about. Paul Bunyan claimed that drug companies are charging $ 12,000 a year per person for AID’s victims in Africa. They are not. Only Americans pay that heavy price. When someone is paying and someone isn’t it sure looks to me like the one that is footing the bill is the one that is paying the $ 12,000, not the one that is getting it for free.

While we are on the subject of Africa, the US is extremely generous (too generous?) with its donations to Africa. The rest of the world is god damned miserly compared to what America has done in the last 40 years. And Bush is far more generous than any of his predecessors in this area.

As usual most of the America bashing is based on bullshit. When presented with the simple facts that America is doing the heavy lifting in the War on Terror, paying for drugs and helping Africa the Europeans take seven weeks of vacation and then criticize us for our efforts.

I guess all the people that do want to work hard for a better life do emigrate to America and the ungrateful slobs they can’t stand stay behind.

95

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I guess all the people that do want to work hard for a better life do emigrate to America and the ungrateful slobs they can’t stand stay behind.[/quote]

LOL, I would be pissed off too if I was getting buttf**ked by my own corporations so that I could ‘benefit the rest of the world’.

Except as soon as you look at the expenditures of big pharma companies, your argument falls flat on it’s back. These companies consistently spend twice as much on marketing as they do on Research & Development. R & D usually accounts for a MAXIMUM of 20% of a company’s profits, while ‘marketing and administration’ is always much much more.

The pharmaceutical industry has consistently turned out the most profits as a percentage of it’s sales AND the most profits total for about 25 years. The American public is doing nothing but making these companies rich, that’s all.

96

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I guess all the people that do want to work hard for a better life do emigrate to America and the ungrateful slobs they can’t stand stay behind.

LOL, I would be pissed off too if I was getting buttf**ked by my own corporations so that I could ‘benefit the rest of the world’.

Except as soon as you look at the expenditures of big pharma companies, your argument falls flat on it’s back. These companies consistently spend twice as much on marketing as they do on Research & Development. R & D usually accounts for a MAXIMUM of 20% of a company’s profits, while ‘marketing and administration’ is always much much more.

The pharmaceutical industry has consistently turned out the most profits as a percentage of it’s sales AND the most profits total for about 25 years. The American public is doing nothing but making these companies rich, that’s all.

[/quote]

That was a bit of sarcasm. It often does not come across well on the internet.

I agree, drug companies spend far too much on advertising. I believe I also said that earlier. Reform is needed.

There is nothing wrong with profit. It is not a bad thing.

I do have a problem with price caps. They have some bad effects. They dry up profit, reduce research and development and create shortages.

A simple example of price caps is my cable bill. About 5 or 10 years ago the price caps on cable were removed.

As expected cable prices have gone up.

As also expected by those that understand I now have almost four times as many channels on my basic cable. The extra money has gone to profit as well as fueled development of many new channels.

Depending on your stance on TV, more channels is generally a good thing.

I take the same stance with medicine, more choice and more options for treatment is a good thing. You do not get more choice with price controls, you get less.

I would be happy to discuss some of the reform that I think is needed in the this area. I think our system now is sick. I also strongly feel that price controls are not the cure.

97

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Depending on your stance on TV, more channels is generally a good thing.

I take the same stance with medicine, more choice and more options for treatment is a good thing. You do not get more choice with price controls, you get less.

I would be happy to discuss some of the reform that I think is needed in the this area. I think our system now is sick. I also strongly feel that price controls are not the cure. [/quote]

I agree that more options for treatment is a good thing, but even if price controls were introduced in the US, the drug companies would still have no problem making a profit.

It’s also hard to imagine them spending LESS on R & D, although I don’t doubt that they would if their profits dipped.

But I don’t think drug companies are quite as altruistic as you suggested earlier, otherwise they would worry more about who could afford their drugs, spend a larger percentage of income on R & D and they DEFINITELY wouldn’t continue to turn out the most profits year in and year out at the expense of people who needed their drugs.

98

I never claimed the drug companies were altruistic. Sharing technology without demanding license fees was forced with a of arm twisting.

Reform is needed badly. Price caps are not the way to go. They may be effective in smaller markets as long as big markets take the brunt of the negative effects of the price cap.

99

Zap, I think you need to look at the bigger picture.

You are paying for that research and other medical costs whether or not it appears to be a direct tax. Increases prices equal increased insurance costs, increased costs to businesses and employees, increased costs to government medical programs.

While I am not advocating it, I would suggest that if the government was funding research it would be possible for the public to exert an influence on the direction of the research for reasons other than pure profits.

I am not saying that price caps are a panacea, but they are also not the devil. You must realize that health care is a controlled industry in virtually every nation. The US controls its health care as well, or at least attempts to, with respect to government drug approval and monitoring processes.

Anyway, while open markets are great, if you’ve seen enough economics you will know that open markets are horrible at handling some issues. One issue they are horrible at is monopolies. Another issue they are horrible at is provision of basic services where there is no real opportunity for profit.

Another issue of POSSIBLE weakness for open markets systems is that they currently are not able to effectively value things that don’t appear on a balance sheet. For example, the health and well being of you and your family is of very little direct importance to any profit seeking company, except where damaging you or your family represents additional costs or risks of costs.

Again, I’m not suggesting that anyone has come up with better systems, but it is a legitimate government activity to impose concerns other than a monetary nature on various markets for the benefit of the populace. Health care, research, utilities and monopoly oversight are traditionally areas that the government has stepped in to adjust the behavior of free markets.

Anyway, just realize that there are all kinds of controls on all kinds or markets, but that the freer a market is, the more efficient it can be. For example, due to legal issues there is no legal market for contracted assassinations.

Oh no, that damned government always interferes with the free market. Thank goodness, sometimes!

The purpose of government is to interfere with free markets and free choice… and limitations are put on government to allow certain rights and freedoms by those that are governed, including individuals, companies and other legal entities.

Swinging back around towards the topic at hand, nearly every nation has deemed it in their national interest to interfere in the area of health care. Don’t forget, it is only by sufferance of governments that companies can acquire patents, copyrights and other government instruments which are designed to foster research.

This IS market interfence too… and the government can take these instruments of interference away if and when it wishes to do so.

Sigh, as always, it isn’t black and white, because the world doesn’t present issues to us in black and white. A lot of resolution is lost if that is all you can see.

100

Polls show most Canadians support increased funding for the Canadian military.

Funny how liberals never reference the billions the liberal government has pissed away on gun control and HRDC fiascos; which could have been better used by the military.

And not one comment on the recent supreme court of Canada Chialoubi (sic)ruling that public (Read: GOVERNMENT) healthcare’s extremely long waiting times violate Canadians’ constitutional right to efficient delivery of healthcare services.