(Post a new comment)

	kijikun 2004-04-13 09:25 pm UTC (link)
	This is wank? Eh okay. (Reply to this)

	squib 2004-04-14 01:58 am UTC (link)
	Don't get me started on Pfizer. I'm trying like crazy to get off Neurontin, which was prescribed for an off-label use and has side effects that they don't want to acknowledge. Feckin' drug companies! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	aruru 2004-04-14 06:21 am UTC (link)
	Neurontin? I just started that a few weeks ago, myself. @_@;; What was it prescribed to you for, and what side effects did you experience? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Pfizer pfcuk-heads vasaris 2004-04-14 05:19 am UTC (link)
	A matter for insurance companies my ass... My mom just paid $60 as the fucking co-pay</> of her Lipitor. ~~Admits that she'd point fingers at the eeeeeeebil bastards too, may they rot in Beelzebub's suppurating appendix.~~ (Reply to this)

meshou
2004-04-14 06:15 am UTC (link)

Not really wank, but political preachiness. My response might be, tho!

Americans pay the most for drugs out of any country. Drug companies are forced to up their price to Americans, because the Canadian government refuses to pay more than pure production cost to buy a medication. If they don't, the Canadian (and English, and French etc) governments will revoke patent, and allow generic companies to make it.

This would not be a problem, if not for the process of developing a new drug:

1) in a lab, a molecule they THINK might be useful if found. They immediately patent it in all countries with sophisticated enough equipment to copy the molecule. This starts a twenty year clock until patent runs out. development phase costs tens of millions of dollars.

2) Out of the few hundred patented each year, only a few dozen will actually pan out in preliminary chemical tests. This takes a year or two, and again, costs tens of millions of dollars.

3) Move on to animal testing. Out of the few dozen, maybe 6 will be safe enough to go to subsequent rounds of animal testing. This'd be about 5 years. Subtract the millions.

4) Finally, human testing. This'd also take about five years. Again, money.

5) the drug is released, with about ten years left on the patent. every once in a while, a drug will have to be yanked, costing money.

In ten years, they need to make up the money from testing and developing a drug without the help of most of its market. As a result, they jack up the price so they can make a profit, and make more drugs. If they can't afford to make more drugs, they go broke.

If we buy our drugs from Canada, Pfizer will go bankrupt. They do not want to go bankrupt. If Canada were not holding Pfizer's proverbial testicles in a vice in so they could get cheap pills, we'd be paying allot less than we are now. That simple.

*sings "Blame Canada" under her breath*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

jfpbookworm
2004-04-14 07:10 am UTC (link)

If we buy our drugs from Canada, Pfizer will go bankrupt. They do not want to go bankrupt. If Canada were not holding Pfizer's proverbial testicles in a vice in so they could get cheap pills, we'd be paying a lot less than we are now. That simple.

Um, I agree with your assessment of the profitability of drug research, but why exactly would Pfizer charge less in the U.S. without the Canadian situation?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

meshou
2004-04-14 07:25 am UTC (link)

I guess I'm arguing that if the Canadian system were never put in place, drug companies wouldn't have hiked the prices to make up for only breaking even everywhere but the US.

If they could make their drug available to everyone in America, it would be much better for them. Pfizer would be happier to take less money from individuals, if they had more individuals giving them money. They'd make more money then.

But, since America is the place the only place they can make money, they have to make their drugs just out of reach for some of their potential market. Sure, you can argue this is evil. However, the alternative is not having Pfizer there to invent drugs like Lipitor in the first place. They are taking a lesser of two evils.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

iczer6
2004-04-14 05:06 pm UTC (link)

However, the alternative is not having Pfizer there to invent drugs like Lipitor in the first place. They are taking a lesser of two evils.

I think you make a good point.

Fact is that drugs don't just fall out of the sky, they have to be made and that takes a lot of money. Naturally they need to get some of that money back by selling them at jacked up prices, if they don't then well everybody gets screwed.

Icz

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

vasaris
2004-04-14 07:28 pm UTC (link)

*sighs* Except that it isn't as though Pfizer or any of the other drug companies are spending all of their own money to create drugs in the first place. I'll admit that I don't know the exact ratios, but the US government covers large amounts of it by way of grants, etc.

And one would note that Canada, France, etc. wouldn't have put their rules in place if not for drug companies gouging in the first place. It's a rather ugly circle.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

meshou
2004-04-15 02:30 am UTC (link)

/And one would note that Canada, France, etc. wouldn't have put their rules in place if not for drug companies gouging in the first place. It's a rather ugly circle./

Not necessarily true. A certain amount of socialized medicine is based on the idea that corporations that have to do with society's health are teh evol, and thus must be heavily controlled by the government. Because Governments are the foundation for all truth and love in the world. Makes sense.

/*sighs* Except that it isn't as though Pfizer or any of the other drug companies are spending all of their own money to create drugs in the first place. I'll admit that I don't know the exact ratios, but the US government covers large amounts of it by way of grants, etc./

Yep-- by about half, they are supported by government and charities. However, so are farmers. the idea with both is if making food and making drugs in America is not profitable, neither will be made.

The profit margin of a Drug company is about 20%, but this is with the 20 year exclusive patent and some tax exemptions. If they didn't have those in place, the profit would be about nine percent. That's comparable to many companies which don't subsist on government help.

Other countries, particularly the ones with socialized medicine, aren't making new drugs. Most of them make generic copies of those made in America. Something about the American way of treating drug companies makes them make more drugs, and something about Canada's discourages it.

I'm thinking being more like Canada's not the way to go if we want more drugs here.

Here's my source. Unfortunately, the author seems to miss one of the points of a capitalist system: If you take away patents from inventors, people stop inventing things.

Sorry for the length. XD;;

(Reply to this)(Parent)

reas
2004-04-15 02:48 pm UTC (link)

Obviously, there's a profound misundertanding out there about how socialized medicine works in Canada. Don't cry for the drug companies - they're not getting ripped off here. They have the same kind of licensing deals with the Canadian government that they do with any other government or company - they get paid a certain amount for their drugs, and it's no lower in Canada than it is in the US. We don't have any Super Sekrit deals with them that mean they're selling at a loss here.

The difference is that, in Canada, my tax dollars help offset the high costs of drugs, so that the average Canadian Joe can buy them at a more affordable price. That's how our medical system works - we pay higher taxes, and then everyone has access to medical care at a more reasonable cost. So when an American buys drugs from a Canadian pharmacy, the dollars they save are coming out of MY pocket, not the drug company's pocket. The more Americans buy drugs from Canada, the more of my tax dollars are going into American pockets in drug savings. It's as simple as that.

So don't cry for the drug companies, or claim that Canada is somehow abusing them or slowing down research. They're not losing anything here. They make just as much money here as they do in the US for the drugs they sell. Cry for the Canadian taxpayer, who is subsidizing the drugs that are moving across the border. It's expensive enough to support our own medical system, without paying taxes here to support the people in the US who want to buy drugs at a lower price by reaching into my pocket.

(Reply to this)