Nice try. If they cut their advertising budgets, and stop trying to get patients to self-prescribe, they could save quite a bit of money that way. And if they stopped pushing drugs on the market too soon, before they're adequately tested, they'd avoid litigation costs as a result of unnecessary patient deaths. The older, tried and true drugs are the way to go whenever possible. You make it sound like consumers don't have a choice, but we do when obscene levels of greed are taken out of the equation.

The question you have to ask is why are pricey drugs like Lipitor being prescribed, anyway? There are already generic statins on the market that work just as well, and are at least as safe, if not safer than Lipitor. Doctors are courted and bribed with perks, such as free trips to "educational seminars" at exotic resorts in order to get them to prescribe the more expensive drugs. It has little to do with what is best for the patients if you are unfortunate enough to have a doctor that succumbs to the marketing campaigns of the mega-pharma companies.

But charls, how is Big Pharma going to make money off of natural supplements? Just like Big Pharma is probably the reason why the Fed has said the marijuana has no positive effects on the body (yet marinol, a synthetic form of THC, does?).

"Yes! You too can suffer from debilitating side effects, including wanting to kill yourself, and the government approves!" *slides money they have stolen from medicaid into politicians' pockets*

The Insurance companies seem to be the ones that will beneifit. Unless you don't have Ins., than you would benefit!

I doubt they'll lower your premium and co-pays, will still rise!

Typically, they raise prices 20 percent or more in the final years before generics hit to maximize revenue.

Is this a health care system or a profit care system?

GLW is the only one who knows what they are talking about here...the only benefit will be to the insurance company. Pharmaceuticals account for roughly 6% of health care spending. We are already using 78% generics. Even if we go to 99% generics, you'll only see a few percent drop in total health care savings, and you can guarantee YOU won't see those savings, the insurance companies will. The real crooks here are the insurance companies, not pharma who the past 5 years has basically abandoned blockbuster model you all demonize in lieu of personalized treatments and orphan drugs.

I'd like to attempt to put some truth into a few of the ignorant comments above.

#1.1...yes cutting advertising budget will help these companies save money. Unfortunately the money they are losing when these drugs go off patent means they cut their ad budget, their administration budget, and their R&D budget. With no innovation and no oversight, you are stuck solely with the "old, tried and true drugs" meaning no new treatments get developed, not the situation we want to be in (this is similar to what happened with antibiotics, and now we have resistant strains of bacteria, yikes). Additionally, these drugs are not pushed onto the market "too soon" they are rigorously tested to FDA standards over the course of 10+ years on thousands of patients. When millions of people start taking them after market launch, each with different genetics, different eating habits, different risk factors, there will be unforeseen side effects. Happens no matter how long or how hard you test the drug in clinical trials.

#1.2...ask that question to a patient taking Lipitor. I know two (they were my professors for a Biotech Law class, coincidentally). They switched to generic and for one the generic worked, the other had to switch back to Lipitor. The generic form of the API may be identical chemically speaking, but the fillers used, even the synthesis process is different. Couple that with slight genetic variations in our population, and what you quickly discover is that the generic does not work for everyone...it may work for 78% of the population though! The brand also does not work for everyone, but may be necessary for the other 22%. There must be choices, or more investment into personalized medicine research.

#1.3 spot on

#1.4...your thinking is dangerous. There is a reason that piles of peer reviewed articles from PhDs and MDs around the world disagree with you. Independent studies, university studies, none of which linked to pharma dollars, disagree with you. Our FDA disagrees with you. Vitamins have no regulation, their claims have been disproved time and time again, and analytical testing shows that variations lot-to-lot of vitamin may not contain ANY of the active ingredients or contain double the dose written on the label. Dangerous stuff, no regulation. Healthy diet is the way to go where you get those vitamins naturally, supplements should not be needed.

#1.5 wow, just wow. You show no understanding of how drugs (including illegal drugs) are scheduled. Pharma and the FDA know the benefits of THC and that is why there have been 1/2 dozen medications approved by the FDA and EMEA since 1985, including marinol which was the first, that is why the active has been moved from Sh. I to Sch. II and now to Sch. III. It's the US Congress who sees no merit, not the FDA, not MDs, not PhDs. Problem is that US Congress likely gets more money from big tobacco than from big pharma, not to mention they have to cater to their voter base who has been anti-drug since the Regan era. Also you need to make a distinction between THC the cannabinoid, and marijuana the plant. The main difference as the FDA and EMEA sees it is taking a targeted synthetic or organic extract orally, transdermally, etc. vs. smoking, which damages lungs.

#1.6...no supplement is FDA approved, for any indication. See my response to #1.4. You are right that diet makes the biggest difference.

#1.7...spot on!

Ok my rant is done, go ahead and pick it apart as I know many will. I'm not saying pharma is innocent by any means. I'm not saying generics are bad, quite the opposite. I'm saying there is a LOT more involved than one or two news articles are ever able to report. It starts (as many pointed out above) with generally being healthy and eating a healthy diet, but that is not the cure-all that some may think. It's not popular sentiment but doesn't make it any less true. These are not opinions, anything I've said can be verified by a simple google search, or better yet google SCHOLAR, or better yet, PubMed.

Oops I thought it said wave of expiring patients. That would bring the prices down...

MBeer,

The professors didn't switch to generic Lipitor. They switched to a generic of another drug in the same class as Lipitor.

Generic Atorvastatin is not available. They were probably taking the generic for Zocor, which is metabolized by different liver enzyme systems and it does not work well for some populations (like some persons of Asian descent since their liver enzymes work differently).

Often, patients get confused. The insurance company charges more for a drug when another drug in the class has a generic, or they won't cover the brand at all.

The Pharmacist explains this, the patient doesn't listen, and eventually the game of telephone turns it into "now I'm taking generic Lipitor".

MmmmMmmmBeer

That's why the Fed just announced that marijuana has no benefits:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/11/u-s-rules-marijuana-has-no-medical-use-what-does-science-say/

And not everyone smokes it. They eat it as well.

The cost of prescription medicines used by millions of people every day is about to plummet.

Yeah right. So is the price of energy, and the price food.

You wanna know what is plummeting? Wages for 90% of Americans, that's if they have a wage.

You wanna know whats not plummeting? Wages for about 10% of Americans.

So big pharma will host a few all expense paid "seminars" and hire a few physicians to give "lectures" and by mid next year most physicians will be pushing the latest "improved" non-generic version.

MmmMmmBeer -- Others' comments aren't ignorant, just pointing out well-known facts, such as the FDA's cooperating with drug companies in getting their products on the market as soon as they can, with many FDA panel members having conflict of interest issues. And bacteria developing resistance isn't the same as other medical conditions such as high blood pressure, etc., where older, proven drugs can be effective, just not as profitable. And on and on.

I've done some research into exactly when Lipitor will come off patent protection and the best I could discern was November 2011. However, it seems that there is a pharmaceutical that has somehow gained exclusive license to produce the generic Lipitor for a period of six months. Isn't that a bit odd?

If what I discovered is accurate, I don't think Lipitor's prices will be coming down in any meaningful manner until probably mid or late 2012.

No, the FDA has some scheme that allows a generic company an exclusive license to produce a generic drug. If a drug is now $100 the generic might sell for 50 or 60 dollars but it will not be $4 Wal-Mart priced until a lot of generic companies make it.

My son take a drug that is generic but only one company makes it. The retail price is $600 for a month's supply!

Take control of your health and get off the dangerous drugs. Cholesterol lowering drugs may lower your cholesterol but the statistics do not show that they prolong life. They are the biggest rippoff of the century, because cholesterol is necessary for heart, brain and muscle health. Statins like Lipitor have also been shown to cause type 2 diabetes. Which eventually leads to taking several other drugs to treat the side effects. A good book to read is Shane Ellison's "Over the Counter Natural Cures"

written by a chemist who actually worked for big Pharma. Statins are just a high priced version of nature's Red Yeast extract.

Yeah, I just love those 'ask your doctor for Expensive Drug You Don't Need' ads. Especially the ones where they don't tell you what it's actually supposed to do and then list side-effects that are far worse than whatever it is it's supposed to be treating.

I'll bring the health insurers into this as well. When one of my prescriptions was finally available in a generic, United HealthCare made the name brand a third tier drug and the generic a second-tier drug (the brand-name had previously been a second-tier). Result? The generic costs me exactly what the name brand used to, and UHC pulls in even more profit. Nicely done.

As a pre-diabetic, I ask my doctor periodically about the new diabetes drugs I see on TV. He tells me they are crap because the drug manufacturer will alter a few molecules, then rename the drug. Thus, the manufacturer gets a virtual extension on their patent.

It's alot easier than actually making a new drug--meanwhile, drug companies don't want to make antibiotics and the basic stuff because that doesn't make them any money. Plus, once your antibiotic treatment is done, you don't need anymore antibiotics. Chronic diseases are the big payoff. I think this is the reason why you don't see the genetic drugs that we have heard so much about. If the doctor can give you a drug or procedure that fixes your genetics, you won't need to take the little pill every day.

Now you can die from the side effects at a cheaper cost.

How generous of the Pharmaceutical companies.

Christina try using cinnamon to control your blood sugar. Big Pharma is trying to find a way to copy this and patent it as well. You can get cinnamon capsules for under $10.

Most of the "brand name" manufacturers also produce the generic drugs under subsidiary companies.

So, often you can get the same drug from the same manufacturer.

Just has different numbers on the pill.

Most of the "brand name" manufacturers also produce the generic drugs under subsidiary companies.

Sure can, but did you catch this article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43513080/ns/health-health_care/t/generic-drug-makers-not-liable-failing-list-side-effects/

Since the generic manufacturers only have to prove that their drugs are identical to the brand, and since the generic label has to match the brand label, and since the brand name manufacturer is the only company doing safety testing, I agree with the court's ruling.

Besides, every single side effect that you see on those 1800 BAD DRUG commercials are known and were published in the prescribing information for the drugs at the time the people suing were taking the drugs.

It's your doctor's responsibility to choose a suitable drug for you and your condition. If you got hurt by a drug, it is more likely to be because your doctor shouldn't have prescribed it to you specifically, not because the drug itself is dangerous.

Yes, in fact, in some cases it is made by the very company who makes the original name brand. I have seen it with my own two eyes. I work behind a pharmacy counter every day & have for approaching 6 years. When Protonix went generic, our pharmacy received a stock supply of Pantoprazole. When I took a small knife to the seal of that bottle & poured some out to be counted, what did I see? The word "Protonix" PRINTED DIRECTLY ON THE TABLETS...and the exact same when Lotrel went generic to Amlodipine/Benazepril. I cut the seal on the bottle myself, only to find that the capsules inside were imprinted with the word "Lotrel". As obvious as the pope is catholic, it proved to me that the big drug companies not only get a percentage (at least at first when only one company [their subsidiary] is authorized to produce generics)...but that they also can afford to sell their drugs at cheaper prices. Also, as a side note, patronize an independent pharmacy whenever possible. They are a dying breed, owned & operated by members of your community, and are very commonly very competitive on generic pricing. If you do not have drug coverage, it pays to shop around, and the national chain pharmacies are very commonly much more expensive than the mom & pop drug store.

Why would you need proof or seem surprised that drug manufacturers get a percentage of the sales of drugs that they manufacture?

And yes, they can afford to sell them for cheaper prices than they initially receive, after they have recouped the costs of research and development. If they sold newly devolped name-brand drugs at the same price as generics, they would go under.

Drug companies are not out to cure you. There's no money in curing people. They just need to make something that will 'help' so they can string you along and you'll feel better, but not cured.

PGelsman, you forgot one thing: that they also make pills to "help" against those pesky side effects, and a pill for those side effects, as well.

hmmm no cures? Evidently pharmaceuticals don't cure anything except … tuberculosis, pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, gonorrhea, any bacterial illness you care to name. American medicine routinely cures previously deadly conditions like appendicitis, ectopic pregnancies and obstetric hemorrhage. Better yet, it can completely prevent many viral and bacterial scourges through vaccination. It's not a coincidence that our lifespan has increased from 48 years to 77.7 years in slightly more than a century. Much of what routinely killed Americans is now routinely cured! Guess that means nothing.

Here hear!

Muhamed Jesus H Vishnu-Goldstein

You are one hell of confused fella!

Matt, sorry to bad-mouth your employer, but they really are just greedy Mafia CEOs... It's a pity how you and others love to drink the corporate kool-aid from the water-cooler. --Just look at this one example from Ralph Nader regarding AZT, years back, for example:

"...why [is] the price of AZT is so high. After all, the taxpayers funded the clinical trials and other research that made a super-profitable market for the private pharmaceutical company, Burroughs-Wellcome, which was permitted by NIH to take out a patent monopoly on this medicine.

NIH compounded the giveaway by not requiring the drug company to agree to price controls on AZT in return for the staggering profits protected by a patent monopoly.

The taxpayers pay twice when impoverished AIDS patients have Medicaid pay for the AZT treatments. And now, after the taxpayer-funded latest NIH clinical trials greatly expanding the AZT market, the taxpayers will pay again for the expanded government insurance payments for this gouging."

This is just one example of how sleazy drug companies are... There are many more cases where research was stolen from labs in Europe and patented in the US to create a drug monopoly -- and thus screw sick people... Look it up.

Read the article:
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1638-AIDSAZT.html

Oh yeah, a nearly 15-year old article about a drug that isn't usually prescribed anymore is actually relevant.

It's just an example, zombie.

Any newer examples JHV-G ? Would love to have some to use and quote.

Yeah, it's funny that people who depend on these drugs think they were invented by little flying fairies. Someone needed to take a lot of time an effort in developing them. Which is better: an expensive drug or no drug at all? Ask someone who is dieing of something that question.

That said, I'm glad when patents run out because cheaper drugs for us all that are already discovered!

Other than cancer, no diseases have been cured and cancer isn't really a disease also with cancer they have more motivation in curing it since the patient won't live long enough to need years of medicine for BP, or diabetes or whatever else a person might develop with age. Diseases like Lyme disease, Crohns, Diabetes or CMT will never be cured, there is way too much money in treating it so spare me the sob story about these companies near-failure, if that was the case we'd hear about them failing often, and we simply don't hear that do we?

BS. Much if this research expense is written off as R&D, and much is done in tax-funded university labs. This oft touted $100 million is nothing more than a contrived talking point.

i agreed w/ you till i got to the part where you were complaining about things you 'think' aren't life threatening that people take drugs for. My father has RLS and before he got on the medication, he lost so much sleep that he was falling asleep behind the wheel... I think that qualifies as life threantening.. or should i just have him drive in your direction and test your theory !?!?!?? You cross the line when you decide for other people 'what is necessary and what isn't' That is the doctors and patients choice, not the pharmaceutical company's.

It's understandable that people are upset about high drug prices, but you have to consider both sides of the issue. It is TRUE that it takes tens of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market ($100MM isn't out of the question), and as soon as it is approved the clock is ticking to earn enough money to justify the investment before it goes generic and another company (many from India) swoop in to manufacture the generic. Did you know a generic is allowed to contain anywhere from 80-120% of the active molecule as a branded drug? Do you know what that means for certain medications - a 40% swing in the potency of the drug? Many docs won't Rx a generic for certain things due to that - and don't forget the vehicle or preservative doesn't have to be the same as the branded version either. That means one month you could go to CVS and get a generic with 80% potency with one preservative and the next month get a DIFFERENT generic (depending on the deal CVS gets with wholesalers that month) with 120% potency and a preservative you may be allergic to. That just doesn't fly for some conditions (psychiatric, ophthalmic...).

I make my living servicing the pharma industry, yet I don't want anyone I care about to be on chronic medications for any reason if they can help it. All drugs have side effects and you are better off if you can avoid taking them, bottom line. Eat right, exercise, etc. - stay healthy and avoid the drug industry if you possibly can. But don't pretend you can't figure out there is more nuance to the situation than "pharma companies are out to screw us". Many have patient assistance programs that help truly needy people get treatment they need, and if they didn't turn a profit the R&D would be greatly reduced and that would be bad for anyone who needs medication.

F Walsh I'll copy and paste from above - Evidently Pharmaceutical Medicine doesn’t cure anything except … tuberculosis, pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, gonorrhea, any bacterial illness you care to name. American medicine routinely cures previously deadly conditions like appendicitis, ectopic pregnancies and obstetric hemorrhage. Better yet, it can completely prevent many viral and bacterial scourges through vaccination. It’s not a coincidence that our lifespan has increased from 48 years to 77.7 years in slightly more than a century. Much of what routinely killed Americans is now routinely cured!

Micro- you have no idea what you're talking about, none whatsoever. Look at a balance sheet, they are free and available to you. In addition, no university researcher would invest their grant dollars into drug discovery, there is NO return for them...rather they investigate drug targets, mechanism of action, etc. which the tech transfer office licenses to companies at a huge cost. Your statement is nothing more than a contrived talking point, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the industry.

Just today, the pharmaceutical companies added another victory.

Rinderpest - a disease of cattle and other edible cloven-hooved animals - has been eradicated.

This disease has caused mass famines in Europe and Africa in the past by wiping out herds.

If the drug makers are spending 90% of their revenue on research, how do they manage to pay their executives such huge salaries? Can't believe the cost for research is that much. Sorry, just can't.

I also call b.s. The pharmas spend twice on advertising what they spend on research. This fact has been in the press since 2008.

"90% of what they make". Some of this is true, but when the "top executives" NOT THE DRUG DESIGNERS OR THE RESEARCHERS GET MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR AS BONUSES. I have no sorrow for anyone that makes 30 million a year. Profit is good, GREED IS NOT, and we all know the difference!!!

Matt, sorry to bad-mouth your employer, but they really are just greedy Mafia CEOs... Sorry you and others drank the corporate-kool-aid from the water-cooler. --Just look at this one example from Ralph Nader regarding AZT, for example:

"...why [is] the price of AZT is so high. After all, the taxpayers funded the clinical trials and other research that made a super-profitable market for the private pharmaceutical company, Burroughs-Wellcome, which was permitted by NIH to take out a patent monopoly on this medicine.

NIH compounded the giveaway by not requiring the drug company to agree to price controls on AZT in return for the staggering profits protected by a patent monopoly.

The taxpayers pay twice when impoverished AIDS patients have Medicaid pay for the AZT treatments. And now, after the taxpayer-funded latest NIH clinical trials greatly expanding the AZT market, the taxpayers will pay again for the expanded government insurance payments for this gouging."

This is just one example of how sleazy drug companies are... There are many more cases where research was stolen from labs in Europe and patented in the US to create a drug monopoly -- and thus screw sick people... Look it up.

Read the article:
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1638-AIDSAZT.html

Matt, thanks for this perspective. Most will blow it off, but having worked for a J&J company and others in different industries with significant R&D commitments, I understand well and affirm the points you made.

Skeptical, and you believe ANYTHING from the MSM? Get a grip, Dude.

Matt, perhaps you can explain why there are at least 4 drug reps in any doctor's office I go to all fighting to buy lunch for the office and to sign the doctor up for conferences in Hawii. Are those expenses part of R&D as well?

Muhamed Jesus H Vishnu-Goldstein...With all due respect, until YOU have actually worked for and within an R&D environment and dealing with the FDA among others, you really don't have much basis for talking about something for which you are grossed uninformed. Sorry, but THAT is a fact.

ray4ausa You have a valid point regarding executive compensation. It is totally out of control and unjustifiable in a global economy. While I hate government regulation, this is one area that somehow needs something other than "market dynamics" to be properly adjusted with common sense and economic reality. It is the key reason I got out of the Fortune 100 environment.

Jack, how much drug-company stock do you own??? PS --I read the news and think for myself. The facts are clear for those who read. I don't drink Corporate Kool-Aid. --Ralph Nader agrees.

You can usually get stock in most companies for under $20.

That small investment gives you the right to vote in elections and have your voice heard in the boardroom.

Otherwise, a company is only beholden to its owners - which for pharmaceutical companies are the shareholders.

Excellent point.

Muhamed Jesus H Vishnu-Goldstein Being an informed person, I got out of the market LONG before 2008.... Speaking of cool aid...Ralph's concoction is a bit moldy, don'tcha think? ;-) That dude is no longer relevant. Next critic, please!

Americans need to do the right thing and stop taking drugs and start supporting the drug industry. We need to cut taxes for these companies and be willing to shell out more tax money to keep these drug companies afloat. In fact I think should tax the senior citizens 30% on their social security checks so that we can let all those in the medical industry off the hook of paying taxes. Just like big oil loses big money with these oil spills, big medicine loses income all the time bending over backwards trying to keep lazy, worthless Americans alive!

Lets do our part Americans and let big business know how much we care about their problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Muhamed Jesus H Vishnu-Goldstein

I read no less than 20 GLOBAL news outlets a day...and that doesn't include the financial sources I read at this point mostly for amusement. Folks, it's REALLY gonna get ugly between now and 2013 regardless of what the idiots in DC do. Hang on and be VERY careful where you put your money because hyperinflation is coming to the good ol' USA.

Ahhh, Mr. Morrow....YOUR day will come. I won't be around to hear you whine for life extending and excruciating pain reliving state of the art drugs. Taxing SS at 30%. Sir, you have NO clue as to what you are talking about. I paid into the system for 45+ years, don't even think about F***ing with me or those of us who trusted our government to use and invest OUR money to sustain us in these later years. Talk to some "smart" seniors who largely relied on traditional "investment portfolios" to fund their last decade or two. Not a pretty picture and it is going to be even worse for YOUR generation. Even a cornered rat with come out a fight to the death. Don't push us.

Jay's comment is showing up in sarcasm font on my computer...

I see Jack that you must be a Republican. Which makes you a traitor or an idiot. More than likely an idiot since you think I am being serious.

Jack (and Cassi) --you didn't answer my question...

How much healthcare and/or pharma stock do you own?? (I got out in 2008 too, but got right back in, post-crash.)

Also, do either of you currently work for a healthcare or pharma company?? (Don't lie now, I know old habits are hard to break!)

I already answered that question...

I have a PharmD, but I do not now work for a pharmacy (I did 10 years of retail). I don't work for and have never worked for a pharmaceutical company. I work for a software company.

I am guessing that my retirement plan might have something in the mutual fund, but I really don't know. I took the default plan over which I have no control of the individual stocks.

I own stock in a previous employer who had a division (not mine) that did durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs and physical therapy equipment, but no pharmaceuticals.

There, full disclosure.

However, if I felt the need to tell a business how they should do business, then I would certainly buy stock in said business as the first step.

Otherwise, laissez-faire.

ha! --Jack and Cassi went home! --Eli Lilly won't like that!

--Oh there's Cassi. What a trooper! going the extra distance for the CEO. You should get a nice bonus for your hard work!

The point is, there are plenty of people with conflicts of interests who blindly defend their corporate masters, at the expense of the innocent.

And yes, there are dozens of examples of drug-company dishonesty and price-gouging.

Muhamed Jesus H Vishnu-Goldstein

Sir, I used to work for a division of J&J that made wound closure devices (Ethicon, in case you are really that interested.) I exercised my hard earned stock options (60-75 hours a week) and sold all my stock long before the 2008 debacle. I am completely OUT of the stock market and will remain so until maybe about 2016 or so if I live that long. My career with four Fortune 100 companies gave me considerable daily work exposure to R&D, so I know more of what I speak than most of the MSM influenced folks posting here. I am a registered independent retiree who EARNED it. I've had it with both political parties AND both Bush 43 and the community organizer floundering in office now, if you care to know. Remember, CONGRESS is the issue, not presidents. Sheesh...didn't people even get any civics curricula in high school? Just one more reason to abolish the useless Department of Education.

Muhamed Jesus H Vishnu-Goldstein

Hey, yer really gonna love this...after J&J, I had a great gig with....gird yourself...and OIL and CHEMICAL company. Give the poor dude a cold compress, I think he passed out. Again, somethings in the corporate world I will vigorously defend and somethings (mainly compensation at the top of the house) I will not.

You worked for? Don't you mean you still do?

Player!

Cassivella how is it that Muhamed had you in the same class as ole jack?

I am bit slow sometimes but outside of you owning a few stocks I can't see where you have the same ties that ole jack has. So what is the deal, are you in league with the devil or something?

I told you, I OWN STOCK! I'm not anti-corporation. --I'm just pro-family, first and foremost.

But I know, CORPORATIONS EXIST for ONE REASON: "TO LIBERATE US FROM OUR MONEY." That is their purpose. That is their goal.

--what I don't get though, is the contradictory, illogical message of, "Government BAD! Anarchy GOOD! --CEOs should be Kings."

"laissez-faire! --let them eat rat poison!" (Warfarin, blood thinner, by the way)

Jay,

Because Cactus agreed with me that for less than $20 you can own a piece of pharmaceutical company stock, which would give you a right to vote on corporate policies and executive pay.

Jay, because old Jack and Cass believe Corporations and their $40-million-per-year CEOs, are sweet, innocent, benevolent puritans who will take care of Americans, like our own parents. They would NEVER cheat us!

(end sarcasm, above)
--There is a middle-ground that must be met...

Well, anyway, time to pick my family some vegetables from the garden. (yes, chemical-free! --enjoy your cancer, Monsanto fans!)

Good night!
(and good luck!)

Many of the drug companies do operate outside the USA. Bristol does their research at the Univ of Bristol in the UK and gets boat loads of subsidies from the British government to do their research using English Grad students. They also have quite a few operations offshore where the labor market is cheap. They are not the only ones to pull this. There is tons of drug studies outside the USA, the only thing keeping some of the R&D in check is the FDA does not allow trials outside the USA to be accepted into our standards of care.

Lets go a step further. When the US Goverment pulled the CFC rescue inhalers off the market due to concerns over ozone. The delivery systems were changed to HFC. Now all the albuterol (Same drug kids!) is now brand name. Why because they changed the delivery system. Yeah big pharma is not greedy. I have been working in the corporate health care sector for well over 20 years, none of them have clean hands. Providers, medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, health care regulation.

The same expenses that cost $25 years ago cost close to the low thousands today. There is plenty of blame to go around. I know people who are professional guinnea pigs because that is the only way they can get health care and medication. That's sad.

No, I believe that corporations exist to make money.

How are the pharmaceutical companies supposedly cheating us? State-funded insurances (Medicaid, CHIP, etc) pay far below market rates for medications. When I was working retail, my state paid 40% below the wholesale price. I rarely even recouped my own cost.

A corporation has no moral responsibility to take care of you.

They produce a product for which there is a market.

Your doctor is the one charged with using their products responsibly.

Kay,

It's not that the non-CFC inhalers are brand name - the one I get for myself is a generic - but insurance companies consider them non-formulary, which means you end up paying more anyway.

Since albuterol is available much more cheaply as nebulizer ampules, I doubt this will end up changing (people don't tend to lose 200 doses of nebulizer medication like they do when they lose one inhaler).

Happily, I don't need more than one a year, but I have a $40 copay for one, as opposed to $10 for 3 of the CFC inhalers.

So, thanks to big government, I am paying over 10 times more for my medication.

I think some of the posters in this thread have been paid by big pharma to type up this bs.

Cassivella you are in league with the DEVIL! Just kidding :)

I agree that coporations exist to make money but I think their goal is also to have all the money. Its just the nature of the beast. If that end result requires that CEO's become heartless and dishonest to make more money for shareholders than that is what will happen.

For the above reason is why I have no sympathy for corporations. A pharmaceutical company is not in business for people. It is only in business to get people's money and to do that I fully believe that todays corporations fully engage in ripping people off.

You disagree I am sure but that is how I see it.

So we got a pharma mouth-piece telling us about the hard times the multi-billionare corps are working hard to make a buck... YAWN! I call your BS.

Hey charls, if you're going to quote wikipedia, did you even bother to read the section titled, "The cost of innovation?"

How's that for, enough said?

Enough said about what Matt? The fact drug companies gouge people with unreasonable charges or the fact that drug companies can charge whatever they want since it is up to the individual to either pay the price they are asking or die from not taking the medication?

This whole conversation is as stupid as the oil companies trying to convince congress that they deserve government handouts because of all they have to do to get oil to America but let's not focus on how much money they make.

This is argument is no better than the leeches who take supplies, like generators, into disaster areas and charge 4 times the going rate. Its wrong, its sick and there is no excuse for it Matt.

Now if you are such a weasel that you support this way of doing business than that is your choice but don't be such a crack whore and gripe because nobody respects the way you do business. If the drug companies want to be the scourge of the business world than they SHOULDN'T expect people to get on their knees for them in celebration of their ruthless way of doing business.

Jay, you're so absolutely right. I think we should just liquidate all the pharmaceutical companies, cancel all their research projects, and let people invent their own medications in their basements.

Research, development, testing, quality control, and manufacturing cost money. If drug companies aren't allowed to attempt to recoup some of their losses from drugs that don't make it into production, what, we're supposed to say, "tough crap" and expect them to sell everything at cost? Maybe in your little fictional communist utopia, but here in the real world, companies have to make a profit in order to continue to exist, and whether or not you like it, it's not a Constitutional right to demand another company invent, produce, and sell you a drug at a price you deem is reasonable.

You know telemarketing companies go through a lot of work to do fundraisers for nonprofit organizations and they give these organizations the profit that is left over which is around 10-20% of what is raised but I never hear arguments in defense of these crooks so why should it be any different than the vulchers who prey on the dying for the last of their money.

Oh Matt! You are such a little girl! I can't rip people off than I am going to take my ball home! You know what lier? Go ahead! Close shop on the filth and research! You want to play the "pity me" card than go right ahead and shut them all done. Some other vulcher will take their place.

Hey Matt we could always bring back slavery to while we are at it. After all slaves never had to worry about what to eat, place to sleep or their health for that matter. The poor slave owener had to take care of all their needs and BOY it was expensive and in the end how did the Negro repay them? They Rebelled! Now they have to fend for themselves and you can just ask any black man, they will gladly tell you how they feel about not being a slave.

Jay, you're ability to construct logical rebuttals is astounding. I might mention you look up the phrase ad hominem but then, the large words might frighten or confuse you.

I don't work in the pharma industry. I used to, years ago. I managed to see their books and the cost of doing business. The one particular project I was involved on was making a treatment for hemophaelia, involving recombinant factor IX. It wasn't cheap. It took them ~$90 million just to get to production levels. They could make ~2kg of active product per month, making ~$400,000 in revenue. That was enough to meet payroll, overhead, and just enough profit to cover a little piece of the massive investment they made. That was when the monthly "harvest" didn't get screwed up by the presence of a single bacteria in the reaction vessels. One bacteria would ruin an entire months production.

But no, you're right, we should all just demand the pharmaceutical companies just sell everything at cost, and they can tough it out.

Jay, you didn't just seriously compare the pharmaceutical industry to slavery, did you?

Matt I didn't compare anything. I simply suggested that we might as well reinstate slavery so that companies like the one you work for wouldn't have to be held hostage by you and pay you wages, that I am sure you thought were to low. I am just saying that we should all take one for the team.

As for your company, they may have you convinced of their dire financial situation but don't expect me to share your beliefs on them. If it was that bad Matty they wouldn't be in business and you know it. So take your tardfest somewhere else and quit using big words on me because you know I didn't work for a drug dealer like you did which means I am not that astute and more than likely I am going to be down right obtuse about this subject.

haha that is how I read it too!

Me too! I am glad I wasn't the only one who read it that way.

That's how I read it too. It does make sense in a way...

Same here:)

With you folks having this temporary "reading and comprehension" problem, it is now understandable why there so may outrageously wacky posts on here. At least you folks caught it. Many don't, and we have lunacy abounding.

Not expiring patients. Gotta keep em alive and sell em more drugs.

This is one of the most disgusting rants I've ever read, and you should be ashamed of yourself and your knee-jerk conspiratorial idiocy.

Epogen, made by Amgen, has saved the lives of two people I love, and one of them is my son. It's expensive, yes, but my son is priceless, and his two children and wife agree with me on that.

I pray to God that all of the members of your family never get any disease that requires a man-made medicine to save his/her life. But I guess you've already made that decision, huh? Grab the Vitamin E! Yeah, that'll work...

hold: You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. But, you got any evidence of the rape? That's a pretty serious charge. As for diet, exercise and supplements approach, I can't tell you how many people I know who have used that approach. I suppose that you'd think it was a good idea for them to go the "alternative" route, so that big pharma didn't profit. Unfortunately, another industry did profit in every one of these cases. The undertakers. The sad thing is that with the exception of one of these people, the proven drugs were readily available and would have saved their lives. So, just take your vitamins when you get cancer. Don't bother calling a doctor, you'd just be wasting his/her time.

Hold,

Without the drug companies, the average life span in the US would be back down to 45 years of age as it was prior to WWII.

People would die from the common cold. Americans would be dying from highly treatable diarrheal diseases. A paper cut could lead to sepsis and agonizing death within a few days.

We would have people in iron lungs due to Polio, and highly contagious Smallpox patients would be dying painfully all around us.

Not to mention we would go back to surgery with only Jack Daniels and a wooden stick for anesthesia.

When I see rants like this, it really makes me cry for the lack of education and naivete of the writer. The writer lacks the experience and education to actually understand the benefits of modern medicine.

For some reason, it has become anti-American for a company to be in business to make a profit.

I know I want the company for which I work to be profitable so I will continue to have employment. I am sure people like Hold feel the same about their own companies.

So, why can't a pharmaceutical company make a profit? Without profits, there is no reason for innovation.

If you want not-for-profit pharmaceutical companies, then you will need to move to a country that is socialistic, even communistic. Heck, even France, which is one of the most socialized countries in the world, has several major pharmaceutical companies that produce items sold in the US - and they are very profitable.

It is just not realistic to expect a company to not make a profit. A drug has costs in order to develop it and manufacture it, and these costs must be recouped.

It isn't the drug company's fault if you cannot afford to take their medicine. It is not the drug company's fault if your insurance company doesn't cover the medication or if they charge you a high copay. Nor is it your pharmacy's fault - pharmacies get reimbursed for at least 10% less than the "suggested retail price" (this is called AWP-10 - average wholesale price minus 10 percent).

However, the drug companies all have programs you can enter that will provide you with free or reduced-cost medications, and your doctor is also provided with samples of medication to give you at no charge.

My suggestion is that people like this should be denied anesthesia, denied sterilized medical equipment, denied prescription and over the counter medications, denied vaccinations - deny them all these contributions of the pharmaceutical companies - then see if they change their tune.

BTW Hard - who do you think makes the vitamin and herbal supplements? The pharmaceutical companies.

When I worked in a retail pharmacy I would laugh at the people who wouldn't purchase something like hormone replacement that was made by a major pharmaceutical company. They would say they didn't want to put chemicals in their body - they wanted a natural solution. So they would go to a compounding pharmacy and get creams made.

When I later went to work at the compounding pharmacy, I noticed that the natural hormone powders used in the cream making were made by the same pharmaceutical companies as the commercial pills.

I would try to explain this to people, as insurance often doesn't cover custom compounding, but they would for some reason insist on the compounded items - like they thought we were growing wild yam plants in the back of the pharmacy.

Wow! We certainly heard from the drug-bunnies on this thread (you know, the little cuties in short skirts that come tripping into the doctor's offices with free samples to extort the wonders of their mega-pharma drugs). Anyway, maybe one of you company folks can explain why they charge 3-5 times as much for drugs in this country than in other developed countries? The answer, according to their own spokespeople, is that they charge it because they can. The other countries negotiate prices centrally, and they can only charge so much. They have to make up the difference in price by charging sick people in the US more in order to pay for all that expensive R&D. They used to try blaming it on lawsuits, but it was too easy for reporters to run the numbers over the past 20 years and find that it only accounted for about 10% of the 300-500% more they charge in the US. For a mere 100-200 million dollars a year in bribery they are able to keep any and all price negotiating legislation out of the US Congress. That is why we pay so much.

ranter,

I work for a software company. I don't actually use my PharmD anymore. I don't have any ties to pharmaceutical companies. I just don't let propaganda blind me.

The reason why drugs cost more in the US is because most of them are developed here.

American companies are bearing the brunt of costs associated with medication development and testing.

Our FDA is the organization that ensures the safety and effectiveness of medications worldwide - other countries wait until the US goes through the bother of approving the medication before they start to work with it.

We have higher levels of safety and effectiveness testing than any other country.

We also pay more and allow longer patents on some drugs like HIV anti-retrovirals because the companies are given longer exclusivity in exchange for their selling of the same medications for pennies in Africa and other third-world areas.

So, basically, we pay more for medications because we are subsidizing the new drug introduction system for the entire world.

I'm not pro pharmaceuticals but do you realize they spend millions and millions on research then the FDA may reject it after millions have been spent. Guess who they pass the loses down to.

Yup, but I consider that just part of the R&D process.

Just like when you go and buy a new iPad or whatnot - you are not only paying for that iPad but also the failures before it and the patent lawsuits and all that comes along with developing any new product.

It's just part of the total cost that needs to be recouped when selling a product.

Anybody who sells a product for just the sum of its material costs will soon find themselves running a deficit.

Good thing the health care bill fixed all that. (hold on let me stop laughing)

Oh yes let's all start weeping for the drug companies! God how insensitive of me not to understand their need to rip me off! I am so confused now because I just don't know who to donate my money to. I was going to give it to homeless shelter but now I realize that Exxon mobile needs it more but maybe the real victim is Johnson and Johnson! Who needs our help more?

Hold that thought!

Sir/Madam...if the adage of "ignorance is bliss" were ever applicable to truly uninformed rants, you have earned well that excuse for your posts today.

Dummies, by some dam* drug company stock and shut up! But don't hold it long...the market will drop about 50% from current levels by the end of 2013. You can take that to the bank...er...your piggie bank under your mattress. Do your research and quite bellyaching.

I'm sorry, but too many folks here just don't understand R&D....it's not their fault only to the extent they listen to the BS of the MSM and don't take the time to learn and understand the costs and failures within R&D until a successful product can be launched regardless of the product or industry.

Yo jackass

I knew you were pharma stooge! Pretending to be a geezer!

The entire stock market crashed during 2009. Even the broken oil companies took big hits. However Johnson and Johnson still paid out dividends in 2009. I think it was 46 cents a share. I know that isn't much but it was much better than walmart. Actually come to think about it drug companies and oil companies both kept paying out dividends.

XOM & JNJ are just doing horrible Jackie. Good thing you didn't sink any money in them.

With all these miracle drugs, you would think the US would be higher than 38th in life expectancy.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/15/life.expectancy.united.states/index.html

You do know it's illegal for physicians to get paid for prescribing a particular medication, right?

He/she doesn't care. That mind will not allow any facts to taint his/her opinion!

That sounds like a real problem... fortunately for you there is a simple solution. Don't buy any drugs and get all your health advice from the internet. Now, you will never have to worry about being robbed by doctors or drug companies again. What's health if you don't have any money to help you enjoy it.

And this why a drug dealer is so misunderstood! Dealers don't hurt people, people take drugs that hurt them. It's their choice to do something stupid so why put a poor business man who is trying to support his family in jail? The world is nothing more than a bunch of crybabies who want to be taken care of!

We don't need big government telling hard working business men what is ethical! We need free enterprise for everything! To hell with all regulations and let the consumer decide what is right and wrong!

OH CRAP that's right, I forgot, the consumer did decide by creating big government. Silly me!

Of course, Eddie. My mother and sister both have worked in doctor's offices. They know full well what happens when the drug reps come in. They are mostly very good looking, flash a bit of cleavage, bring in all sorts of goodies, invite doctors to golf outing at very expensive exclusive country clubs, expensive trips under the guise of conferences, etc. The real kicker? The HUGE amount of samples that are left behind, as well as the knowledge that anytime those samples are gone, they will being in more "next time" or you can just give them a call. How is it that they can give away all of those samples, yet poor schmucks like you and your buddies have to practically sell a kidney to afford them?

Pharmaceutical reps have not been allowed to give gifts (even pens) for some time now.

And here's a thought - why don't you ask your doctor for samples?

The samples are there for everyone.

Your doc can easily hand you 6 months worth of a drug and save you thousands of dollars.

Geez, those evil drug reps. Always looking to save consumers money.

my doctor always gives samples when he has them.

Kathleen,

You are not understanding what is happening with your husband's medication.

Colchicine was never on patent in the US.

The drug is so old (it has been around since the mid-1800s) that it was grandfathered in along with aspirin and such.

Since it is such an old drug, since there are better drugs for gout, and since Colchicine has a very narrow therapeutic index (meaning it is very easy to get poisoned by it), most companies decided to stop making it.

One company decided to actually put Colchicine through the FDA approval process in 2009, and since they went through this expense, they were able to get exclusive marketing for the product.

Since no other generics could market Colchicine, any companies still bothering to make it decided to stop.

Since they were the last manufacturer left, URL Pharma could charge whatever it wants for the drug.

This has happened time and time again as manufacturers realize they don't want the legal liability with the grandfathered drugs. Most will stop making the drugs or drug components, and someone will get ambitious and decide they will take the risk, but only if they can increase the price 500%.

Same thing happened a few years ago with one of the components of Midrin and the generics that used the same manufacturers for the component.

The fact remains that if you are taking one of these drugs when something like this happens, it is generally a sign that there are drugs out there that are newer, work better, and have less side effects.

Kathleen, has your husband changed his diet? Of course doctors won't tell you to stop one thing, the biggest thing to stop when you have gout: coffee.

I should have gout, I drink at least 4-5 cups of coffee every day.

Has your husband asked about generic Allopurinol for gout? It does require a blood test to determine the dosage, but my husband has been on it for years. It costs about $5 a month, and he has had only one flare up since starting it.

Our nephew (same family history) had been through several very expensive medications for gout with no relief of symptoms. My husband told him about his own pills. When our nephew changed to the Allopurinol, his symptoms finally stopped. So much for advances in medicine!

Ummmm....perhaps you would like to take a look at Bush's stunningly asinine,self-serving Medicare Part D rules.....assuming,of course, that you can actually wade through all the hype and actually understand just how screwed the folks who signed up for this little Bush brainchild truly are. This isn't going to help them a bit, because the Part D contracts are all for branded drugs at whatever the manufacturer wishes to charge for them. Once they hit the donut hole I suppose they can go to generics, but of course that will mean that they will continue paying full price for their meds while paying premiums to the companies that overcharged them in the first place, often until the next enrollment period because their spending for generics won't be enough to get them out of that black hole they will have been thrown into.

In a variation of Occam's Razor, never assume malice where ignorance will suffice. Or more succicntly, think cock-up before conspiracy. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct and such studies exist. But are you aware of how many medical trials and studies are undertaken just in this country every year, excluding all the studies that are conducted in Europe, Asia, etc.? We're talking not thousands, but 10s of thousands. They all percolate through a time consuming peer review process that includes looking at methodologies, sample sizes, etc before they reach publication in incredibly dense medical journals.

But even when a study seems to make a breakthrough revelation, it's initial publication does not usually immediately provoke a widespread change in the practice of medicine. Instead, it prompts other researchers to attempt similar trials to validate the original results, which then go back in to the peer review process to verify their quality before publication. After several iterations of this process, doctors begin to notice a trend across studies, and some does a study aggregating all the small study results, at which point treatment patterns begin to change. The information is not buried, merely being processed by those qualified to review it.

It's also worth noting that when a single study does quickly break in to public consciousness, it's usually one that, after causing a decade of disasterous errant public response, it's determined the whole thing was flawed. Case in point is the moron who linked vaccines and autism, urging a generation of parents to skip vital life-saving vaccines. The doctor who wrote that study has since been censured and lost his license, and the journal that published it and publicized has issued numerous retractions and apologies. But that hasn't stopped Jenny McCarthy from continually repeating this deeply flawed theory.

AMEN!

You do know that statins are just a high priced version of nature's Red Yeast extract? And guess what, now you have to take 2 pills to get your cholesterol to the dangerously low levels that someone thought up to sell more drugs. It is the mass quantities of sugar and artificial sweeteners in our diets that is causing all the health problems. I am willing to bet people are taking those pills and eating whatever garbage they want. My doctor had me on 2 meds for cholesterol lowing and I took them because I trusted him. After 2 years and the beginnings of muscle problems I did some research and did not like what I found. I take no medications now and have dodged the diabetes bullet that the rest of my family has. BTW they all started taking the cholesterol meds before they developed diabetes. I recommend Shane Ellison's "Over the Counter Natural Cures"

No.

And now you know, sir, the whole point of Obama care. To make sure the mafia gets paid.

You know, I take a medication that would be over $2000 a month if I had to pay for it out of pocket.

I'm happy that the medication is available for me. It means I can live a normal life now.

I think my life is worth $2000 a month.

But you aren't paying the cost. All of us are. I am glad you are happy with yourself. Please pass the gift of life along to someone less fortunate who cannot even afford to keep a roof over his head, let alone spend $2000 a month for medicine.

Jean,

I was making a couple of points.

The first point is that most people have no idea how much their medication actually costs. They only care if their copays go up.

And the second point is a rhetorical: how do we weigh cost vs. a life?

I value my well-being enough that I would be willing to pay $2000 a month for my medication.

Because I work hard and work for a company that somewhat values me, I have insurance that helps me cover the bill.

If government was given pricing controls over medications, whose valuation would they use?

Accoustic's value of $700? Or my value of $2000?

"Too expensive" is a judgement that scales based upon how much income one can devote to medications.

When I was practicing, the people having the most trouble paying for their medications were elderly patients. These patients weren't having trouble paying for $700 a month medications. They were having trouble paying for $30 a month medications.

If you are on expensive medications, you often can get help from the drug manufacturers. It's relatively easy to even get expensive drugs for "free" from them (again, this is built into everyone's cost).

But, if you aren't poor enough for Medicaid, and if Medicare isn't covering your prescription medications, no one is trying to help you pay for your $30 a month generic medication.

Things have changed a bit in the 8 years or so since I stopped working in a retail pharmacy. Stores have their $4 generics programs, and Medicare actually does have some sort of prescription coverage now.

I think I've done my time in helping people get access to their needed medications. I used to think I spent all my time on the phone with either the doctor's office trying to get a prescription re-written, or the insurance company trying to get a drug authorized. And then there were the countless forms to fill out to try to help people get assistance from either the manufacturer, a community group, or a government agency.

Jean, what are you doing to help people afford their medications? Or do you just want to insult people and complain?

What if you can't afford to pay $2000 a month for drugs.

Then I either need to make changes so I can afford $2000 a month for medications, or I wouldn't be able to take the newer, better medication and would need to take an older, cheaper medication.

Yeah.

A lot of the new drugs like Lexapro and Clarinex are half of the molecule of their predecessors (Celexa and Claritin) or are just the active metabolite (kind of a "digested version").

So, Lexapro and Clarinex will work better with less drug and less of the side effects of the "parent" drug.

But, in reality, a drug like Claritin has so few side effects, it really isn't worth paying more for Clarinex.

However, what has happened with Claritin is that since it went over the counter, a lot of insurance companies will no longer pay for Claritin. But, they will happily pay for Clarinex. So, it ends up being cheaper for the consumer with insurance when these situations happen.

Pharmaceutical companies used to not be allowed to advertise on TV and magazines (direct to consumer).

You have your lawmakers to thank for the change.

If you don't like it, lobby your lawmakers to change it back.

I'll have to ask my doctor about that I guess

the job of a corporation is to make as much money as they can for shareholders.

The job of government is to regulate companies and industries and products so that the public's interest is protected.

The high cost of prescription drugs is a failure of government to do its job, which I think is also a serious social failure. That's what you guess when you elect lawmakers who put corporate interests above that of the public. Bush's prescription drug bill is a perfect example of how to rape society to enrich corporations.

Catch up with the times. Those free meals, vacations, sports tickets, etc. are a thing of the distant past. They can't even hand out branded pens anymore - read the PHARMA guidelines.

Oh, well, if it's in a pamphlet then...

Good post but you forgot to add how much they spend on lobbying Congress to keep their monopoly intact. Don't want those inferior cheap Canadian drugs competing as we all know the Canadians are dying from using them..........hmmm.

Corporations these days exist to make a profit more so than providing the general public with a good or service. If the shareholders don't see profits, they are going to be like "WTF are you doing with my money, perhaps you don't need it anymore." and the company will go down. It seems that you want some sort of "profit cap," but how would this be determined?

Bush's prescription drug plan costs consumers (and enriches drug companies) to the tune of an estimated $1 trillion. You really, really want to pay that money so drug companies can make more profits and pay higher dividends to their shareholders...or perhaps you're an investor who wants to maintain your high profits at the expense of society. If so, that's fine...but don't throw out BS about how high profits are a corporate need. Want, yes...need, no.

My post was about the necessity in many cases of government regulation. If you're looking for ideas in the prescription drug industry, look at Canada. Look at Great Britain. Look at France. Look at any European country that regulates prescription drugs for the benefit of consumers rather than corporations.

Your argument is just another variation of the "if they don't make more profits they will go out of business" argument, which as I already said is total BS. You set up false choices and ask me to choose? No thanks.

Andrew,

We live in a democracy that is based upon laissez-faire capitalism.

Companies exist to make profit. It doesn't matter in which sector they operate.

If a company does not make a profit, they will not exist.

What you are talking about is socialism. Last time I knew, we were not a socialist society.

Also what you are missing is the fact that we get new drugs much faster than the rest of the world.

We pay for that benefit.

France, Canada, and Great Britain sit back and watch as we spend American money developing and testing new medications.

Then they sit back usually for about 10 years or so and wait just to make sure the drug goes over well with the public.

Then you can finally get your medications (if your government run healthcare system allows you to have them over a cheaper alternative).

Andrew, it's interesting that you think you have the right or the power to determine what is an "appropriate" profit level for a given business or industry. Tell me, what, to your most gracious and magnamimous mind, is an appropriate percentage of profit for a corporation to make? Is it fixed for all businesses, or should some businesses be given permission to make more profit than other businesses?

Realize that end outcome of your thinking is the death the market as we know it. Traditionally, price is set by what a consumer is ultimately willing to pay for a product. If someone invented a product that everybody loved and simply had to have, the price would rise, especially if there were constraints on the production or availability of the product. If it became less popular, the price would drop.

In your world, it appears, if it only cost Apple $100 to make an iPhone, you would limit the price to some arbitrary percentage over that cost, regardless of the fact that everyone and their sister wants one.

And this is without getting to complicated economics of calculating a company's "profit" versus a product's "profit." Every product is a bet that the company is making that it will be popular or useful enough to charge enough to make money. Some companies are very successful, and every bet pays off, but most companies have more mixed results, with some bets paying off and some not. With profit from successful products cover losses from unsuccessful ones, how price each product to hit your happy percentage of magnanimously allowed profitability?

You know what I want to find out?

What the profit margins are for Kool-aid.

I mean, it's just a little packet of artificial flavour and colour, and they sell those for over a dollar a piece.

Let's go attack Kool-aid!

Or, even better - the ice companies! It's just frozen water! And water is almost free!

/sarcasm

So, Andrew, do you make a profit? Does your employer? Ohh, right, your morality is for other people.

You guys are funny. You see what you want to see, and your responses to my post are good evidence of that.

We have a mixed-market...always have and probably always will.

Interesting comments but nothing much to respond to. I've learned that 90% or more of online posters don't know the definition of isms like capitalism, socialism, fascism, or communism. What I was talking about has nothing to do with "socialism".

The state of education in this country does make me sad...and again, more indication that people don't understand the definition of "profit" in the context of this conversation...Mike. And don't argue, because I know you think you do - you assume you do - but you don't. I hope you either look it up or think about it.

I have a feeling I understand socialism a little more than you, Andrew.

All of your examples were of countries with socialized medicine.

Advocating government control of a publicly-traded company's profits smacks of communism.

In our country, you have no right to affordable healthcare. Our social programs try to catch people who are truly unable to afford healthcare like the disabled.

But if you can work, you are expected to work and provide medical insurance for yourself and your family.

Sure, if Obama has his way, this will change.

But even in Massachusetts where the most changes have been made, the individual is the one responsible for obtaining insurance, not the government.

However, in our country, it is considered very American to be successful, unless, apparently, you work in the pharmaceutical or oil industries.

It boils down to grade-school jealous. The people complaining about CEO pay are still mad their mommies and daddies couldn't afford Jordache or Guess jeans (or whatever your era).

In a democracy, we have the right to fend for ourselves. If we are successful, we have full rights to our proceeds (minus taxes of course). If we fail, then we should not reap the benefits of someone else's successes. There must be a penalty for failure or no one will try.

Advocating government control of a publicly-traded company's profits smacks of communism.

I never called for "government control" of profits. Taxes and subsidies, as well as other incentives, and penalties are used to some degree or another in every industry in the US, and no one thinks that's "communism".

In our country, you have no right to affordable healthcare. Our social programs try to catch people who are truly unable to afford healthcare like the disabled.

They try, and they fail - to the tune of 30 million people, give or take a few million.

But if you can work, you are expected to work and provide medical insurance for yourself and your family.

Sounds peachy. Medical costs, driven in part by skyrocketing medication prices, plays a role in putting medical insurance out of reach for the aforementioned 30 million people who don't have it. All of the major insurance companies jacked up their rates last year - some people saw rates rise 40%. Government regulation is the only solution, and we are among the very few industrialized countries that has not figured that out, thanks in part to the pharmaceutical lobby.

It boils down to grade-school jealous. The people complaining about CEO pay are still mad their mommies and daddies couldn't afford Jordache or Guess jeans (or whatever your era).

I don't know what this means. All you can think of is that my position must be about some residual childhood jealousy? I can put that theory to rest by telling you I never wanted for anything growing up.

In a democracy, we have the right to fend for ourselves. If we are successful, we have full rights to our proceeds (minus taxes of course).

In a democracy, people have the right to vote for their government representatives. In a republic we appoint people to cast votes that "represent" the electoral will of the people - although interestingly they are under no obligation to do so.

If we fail, then we should not reap the benefits of someone else's successes. There must be a penalty for failure or no one will try.

I don't know...I'm at a loss. I think your logic is twisted. Higher penalties for failure most certainly would not raise the rate that people "try". Higher penalties would, in fact, have the opposite effect. Or, maybe you think people born in this land shouldn't have a right to live a comfortable life with access to basic things like affordable medical care. I don't know...whatever you're thinking seems a bit on the disturbing side. Maybe the jealousy projection thing you previously mentioned is more about you than it is about others. As I said before it has nothing to do with me, and you were the one who brought it up. I don't know...that's for you to sort out.

Andrew, all I see from you is some hand-waving about how you know what the terms socialism and capitalism, and we don't, but no real engagement with the argument. Your core complaint, quote directly, is:

Profits are beyond what is necessary to do business, which includes paying salaries, bonuses, benefits, and all other corporate expenses.

The implicit solution to this complaint is that the public, through the government, should have some say in what salaries are appropriate, what bonuses are appropriate, what benefits are appropriate, and what corporate expenses should be allowed in a privately owned company. Sure, if the CEO had a smaller office without a persian rug and flew on a G4 rather than a G6, Pfizer could save a few bucks and not charge quite as much for pills, but it's a private company and we, as voters, don't get to make that decision for them, even if you think those are needlessly frivolous expenses.

If you don't like the way Pfizer does business, don't buy their stock or their products. I know, for some, that choice is not completely free, as the choice may be take Pfizer products or die. But if not for Pfizer, there would be no choice. It would merely be "die."

Which brings us back to skyrocketing cost of health care. It costs so much more now than it used to because it does so much more. By way of analogy, today's Ford Mustang costs about 20 times what the original one did 50 years ago. But new Mustang costs more because it has a computer controlled engine, airbags, seatbelts in every seat, blue tooth, navigation, etc. It's asinine to complain about costs increasing if you don't look at the increase in quality.

More directly on point, in 1945, a hospital's largest single expense for consumable items was not medication of any kind, or even all medications put together. It was clean linens. You went there to get bandaged up, and if you had something nasty like cancer, the best they could do was manage your pain (poorly) while you died. Today, something like 75% of cancer patients are alive 5 years after diagnosis, and 65% 10 years after. Life expectancies are 10 years higher now than 50 years ago. So don't expect to pay the same price for the new level of care.

Wow.

Basic supply and demand.

There is not a huge demand for chloroquine in the US as it is only approved for the treatment of Malaria.

Most people who take it for the approved reason are people who are traveling into malarial areas - but there are better drugs for malarial prevention.

So, the only people taking it in the US generally are taking it off-label for things like leg cramps, for which there is only anecdotal evidence.

So, most of the companies that made chloroquine stopped making it because they were afraid of the liabilities involved with a bunch of people taking a really old (1934) drug that Bayer didn't even want when they developed it because it was way too toxic to humans.

So, again, if you are the only shop making the drug, and most of your customers are taking it off-label and aren't going to be defecting to "better" medications anytime soon, the laws of supply and demand mean that you can charge whatever you want.

A smaller manufacturer isn't going to touch a medication like chloroquine or colchicine because they are just too toxic to bother with, and they would have to put money into proving their generic formulations.

Dan: 3 words.............Low profit margin.

Would you rather sell a new antibiotic or cholesterol pill for a $50/day prescription use of chloroquine for 50 cents. Profit is the driving motive not health

So, Maz, do you own a 401(k) or an IRA? Do you own stock in a company? Do you own business or employed by one? There is nothing illegal with profit, in fact, if you do not report a profit at some point, the IRS will come looking for you, because how could you possibly stay in business?

There is nothing immoral or illegal with large profits, either. If you don't like it, then stop doing business with that company. Oh, they are the only ones who make your precious meds? Awwww, well, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. RIP! I don't hear anyone here bitching about Apple Computer and their profits.