Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 196 to 209 of 209
  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    What is not true? As a pure money making venture, and without government intervention, you aren't spending billions on a treatment that affects a small fraction of the population. You can never charge them enough to recoup your investment. Would there be charitable orgs, as there are now, raising money to research diseases and look for cures/treatments? Sure.
    Why are you pretending that the only things being studied are those that affect a small fraction of the population? More than 50% of Minnesotans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. What % suffer from erectile dysfunction? What % suffer from heart disease? What % suffer from diabetes? What % suffer from emphysema? And so on, and so on, and so on...


  2. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpodoll68 View Post
    Why are you pretending that the only things being studied are those that affect a small fraction of the population? More than 50% of Minnesotans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. What % suffer from erectile dysfunction? What % suffer from heart disease? What % suffer from diabetes? What % suffer from emphysema? And so on, and so on, and so on...
    I'm not pretending that and I didn't state that. Read my previous post, I ran down where pharma companies are putting their research dollars. Oncology is the biggest one.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    I'm not pretending that and I didn't state that. Read my previous post, I ran down where pharma companies are putting their research dollars. Oncology is the biggest one.
    Exactly - and, as I stated, 50% or more of us will be diagnosed with cancer. So what does "you aren't spending billions on a treatment that affects a small fraction of the population" have to do with cancer? Is 50% a small fraction of the population?

  4. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpodoll68 View Post
    Exactly - and, as I stated, 50% or more of us will be diagnosed with cancer. So what does "you aren't spending billions on a treatment that affects a small fraction of the population" have to do with cancer? Is 50% a small fraction of the population?
    You are purposely avoiding the argument I was putting forward. The statement you quoted from me was not in regard to 'cancer'. But to answer your question, cancer drugs are not all for 'cancer' generally. There are orphan cancer drugs for rare types of cancer for example.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    You are purposely avoiding the argument I was putting forward. The statement you quoted from me was not in regard to 'cancer'. But to answer your question, cancer drugs are not all for 'cancer' generally. There are orphan cancer drugs for rare types of cancer for example.
    I'm not avoiding anything. Some types of drugs wouldn't exist but for government intervention - most would. Not all cancer drugs are for cancer generally, but many are. And why are you putting cancer in scare quotes?

  6. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    So you were wrong. Ok fine.
    I cited a case where a disease state with 20k people has 17 drugs in development, average cost almost $3 billion. That's about $50 billion, and that's not all the money that's been spent on this disease state. As DPO stated, there might have been thousands of drugs tried to get to those 17, and those are just the drugs in an advanced state of development.

    Drug companies in the US are putting the bulk of their R&D toward specialty drugs, orphan drugs, and oncology drugs, all very expensive and all very profitable.
    Which one of those 17 drugs cost $10 billion?

  7. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpodoll68 View Post
    I'm not avoiding anything. Some types of drugs wouldn't exist but for government intervention - most would. Not all cancer drugs are for cancer generally, but many are. And why are you putting cancer in scare quotes?
    Statement: a drug that costs billions of dollars to produce, for a condition which only 10k people have, would not be produced but for government intervention. That's the statement. What I didn't say:
    These are the only drugs being studied.

    If you have any specific disagreements, go for it.

  8. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    Which one of those 17 drugs cost $10 billion?
    You are hopeless.

  9. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    it doesn't matter what I believe in. The fact is, and the only argument I'm making in this thread, that the high cost of drugs is because of government intervention in health care. If you think patents are great and worth it, fine, but giving companies a monopoly, and then forcing the market to purchase your drugs, is a recipe for high costs. And that's what you've got.
    Didn't you just argue the opposite? That they wouldn't be immediately copied and sold for cheap, and that you could "gouge" the market for years?

    Fix what? A free market health care system would look very different to our health care today. Some people would be worse off, a huge majority would be much better off, and costs would be far lower than they are now. It's a trade off.
    It is a factor. It is not the ONLY factor.

    An unregulated system with no patents, etc. would lead to very few new drugs and a lot of lawsuits and injured/dead people. But the ones that exist would probably be cheaper. Over time, that is not a better system.

  10. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    You are hopeless.
    No, you once again made a ridiculous claim with grossly exaggerated #'s and are now trying to backtrack.

  11. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    It is a factor. It is not the ONLY factor.

    An unregulated system with no patents, etc. would lead to very few new drugs and a lot of lawsuits and injured/dead people. But the ones that exist would probably be cheaper. Over time, that is not a better system.
    It's the reason that drug prices are so high. That doesn't mean it's the "only factor".

    Fewer new drugs, yes. more lawsuits? Have a hard time seeing how. More injured dead people? No, I don't agree with that either. But regardless of your opinion, the only thing I've tried to establish is that the reason for the astronomical price is government. If you think it's worth it, I think that's a fair opinion to hold. But the unbelievable attempts to try to deny that basic fact is a big problem.

  12. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    No, you once again made a ridiculous claim with grossly exaggerated #'s and are now trying to backtrack.
    I backed up my numbers and it went over your head, you are hopeless.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopherguy0723 View Post
    That's true. But this is a thread about prescriptions, and prescription drugs are a driver of higher health care spending per person.
    0723, you may want to read the attached article. It echos my response below to you last week.

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    Prescription drug spending in the US is about 10% of total healthcare spending. In addition to being one of the most cost effective means of improving quality of life/health and extending life expectancy, prescription drugs prevent the decline of health and further complications due to illness that would otherwise require more expensive health treatments or procedures.

    If you simply look at things as healthcare costs or “spending per person” that have no impact on one another, and not in their impact on the prevention of other costs, you will have a very distorted perception of their value and priority in healthcare and healthcare expenses. To suggest that “prescription drugs are driver of higher healthcare spending” is almost entirely backwards. Prescription drugs drive down the total cost of healthcare and saves lives. If you don’t believe that, take them completely away and see what happens.

    I’m not advocating for the increased use of prescription drugs. I’m suggesting that the most effective and cost efficient use of prescription drugs is to allow doctors, patients, and pharmacists to determine and use which therapies are THE most effective for their conditions; and not allow the government to dictate which drugs will be allowed under negotiated circumstances without any knowledge of what is best for the patient in the avoidance of declining health and its impact on other healthcare costs, just what is best for minimizing prescription drug costs.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...rices-n2482210

    ...The administration identified several issues: high list prices, government health care programs paying more than necessary, excessive out-of-pocket costs, and “foreign governments free-riding off of Americans investment in innovation.”

    In fact, drugs are cost-effective compared to other medical treatments, such as surgery and hospitalization. Moreover, medicine is expensive to make—most research ends up as dry holes. The few successful pharmaceuticals must pay for the failures. Other countries employ price controls, taking advantage of Americans who pay the bulk of the costs.

    Unsurprisingly, liberals propose to use the nostrums of the past to reduce pharmaceutical costs. Price controls, of course. Restrictions on patient choice. Limiting patent rights, which create the incentive for drug research. Government “negotiation” through use of its near monopoly market power.

    The president is determined to reduce drug costs. “One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs.” But that is not his only important goal.

    Noted Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine, “Imposing price controls would lower prices, but at the cost of creating shortages, developing fewer new drugs, and—ultimately—compelling Americans to lead sicker and shorter lives.” Thus, government should use markets and competition to lower prices, while preserving the incentive for companies to develop new medicines. Uncle Sam must not kill the golden goose...
    ...Pharmaceuticals are among the many modern medical miracles which we all enjoy. Azar observed that “We are living through the most innovative era in the history of medicine. Our free-market system has produced cures and treatments that seemed impossible a short while ago.”

    Drug costs still need to come down. It is vital, however, that Washington not discourage continued innovation. The president’s reforms strike precisely that balance.

  14. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    0723, you may want to read the attached article. It echos my response below to you last week.



    https://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...rices-n2482210

    ...The administration identified several issues: high list prices, government health care programs paying more than necessary, excessive out-of-pocket costs, and “foreign governments free-riding off of Americans investment in innovation.”

    In fact, drugs are cost-effective compared to other medical treatments, such as surgery and hospitalization. Moreover, medicine is expensive to make—most research ends up as dry holes. The few successful pharmaceuticals must pay for the failures. Other countries employ price controls, taking advantage of Americans who pay the bulk of the costs.

    Unsurprisingly, liberals propose to use the nostrums of the past to reduce pharmaceutical costs. Price controls, of course. Restrictions on patient choice. Limiting patent rights, which create the incentive for drug research. Government “negotiation” through use of its near monopoly market power.

    The president is determined to reduce drug costs. “One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs.” But that is not his only important goal.

    Noted Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine, “Imposing price controls would lower prices, but at the cost of creating shortages, developing fewer new drugs, and—ultimately—compelling Americans to lead sicker and shorter lives.” Thus, government should use markets and competition to lower prices, while preserving the incentive for companies to develop new medicines. Uncle Sam must not kill the golden goose...
    ...Pharmaceuticals are among the many modern medical miracles which we all enjoy. Azar observed that “We are living through the most innovative era in the history of medicine. Our free-market system has produced cures and treatments that seemed impossible a short while ago.”

    Drug costs still need to come down. It is vital, however, that Washington not discourage continued innovation. The president’s reforms strike precisely that balance.
    Agreed on this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •