They offer a payment plan option: $20,000 per month, forever. (yes forever, even after you die.)

The total price would then generally vary from $94,500 to $121,500 per patient, within Wall Street's expected range.

The Wall Street mark up! Just curious but doesn't this seem like another form of the so called death panel. Just what I want Wall Street deciding who gets can afford treatment..

Capitalism at it's finest. If you want to live, you better pay.

Please continue to recite your Conservative mantras...
Universal coverage? HELL NO!
Tax breaks for the rich? HELL YEAH!

In 1999, PhRMA testified that the average cost of drug development was $500 million, and that only 1 in 5,000 compounds are successful.

Bristol-Myers Squibb has spent more than $1 billion to develop Taxol, a drug it did not invent.

Making disgustingly huge profits on the suffering of people... leaving many who might be helped to die because they can't afford the treatment... How can anyone in good conscience say that only those who can afford to pay out of pocket or can afford healthcare insurance (for those rare policies that cover such drug treatments) should live?

Not saying drug companies shouldn't make profits - they must. But there needs to be access provided for those who need these life-saving drigs and can't afford it. Consider it mandatory pro-bono work for being allowed to make such hefty profits here in the US.

A friend's daughter had ALCL... one drug they tried for her cost over $8000 for a single vial. Her insurance covered 100% of her treatments per year (After her $5000 deductible). Her coverage was around $200/month at the time. To date her treatments have totalled over $1.5 million and they have paid about $15,000 out of pocket. And they are NOT rich.

Rale - why didn't you develope this drug? Then you could give it away.

Nightbreeze, I guess I don't understand why drug companies need to make a profit. I feel all profits should go back into the company and people should not make money off the misery of others. I also think the government should intervene and put an immediate stop to print and television ads by pharmaceutical companies. The average person is note educated enough to understand the various drugs and these ads are a monstrous waste of money and they just put pressure on doctors to prescribe these meds because their uneducated patients are clamoring for them, not knowing that they are not the best choices for them but just because they saw them on television or read about them in a magazine. Having the advertising budgets slashed would save millions alone. Also, we need to reform the patent laws, so that they have to have an actual NEW DRUG, not just add something minor to an old drug, just to hold onto the patent and to keep it from going generic. Big Pharma, like the rest of Corporate America, is in desperate need of reform and rules. Like a bunch of unruly teenagers, they have partied far too long and need the grown-ups to come home and lower the boom on them.

The tip of the iceberg.

There's so many fingers in the pie - a loaf of bread is $3.00 - your life depends on food, water, energy. Greed is sucking the life out of this country. It's a virtue in many circles.

I am with you always.

funny how they say it takes so much money to bring these drugs to market, yet they start with products our public universities have developed, that interns getting pell grants have worked on, that for every dime they spend, they get tax breaks and write offs, and in the end, get a patent that says THEY developed it therefore they can ask $100,000 for the treatment that uses it.

Seems to me, we the taxpayers aren't getting our money's worth!

I wonder what this drug costs in Canada and the UK? Seems a lot of drugs developed in this country have much higher prices here than they do in other countries, even though they are produced here.

Seattle is the greediest left wing state in the nation.
The cost doesn't surprise me have you seen the mansions in that town?

The Wall Street mark up! Just curious but doesn't this seem like another form of the so called death panel. Just what I want Wall Street deciding who gets can afford treatment..

Hypocrisy...it is what it is.

Republicans have no problem if a company decides to deny care to thousands of people because they make more money by keeping prices high. That, they would say, is the free market at work, and if people die so a company can make more profits, then that's OK.

On the other hand, a national healthcare system would negotiate a lower price and treat those thousands of people. If someone were ever denied the treatment it would be on the basis of their condition, not their ability to pay. This, according to Republicans, is a death panel.

I hope they live long enough to see their private for-profit medical system crumble before they die and burn in hell for all eternity.

Well, I know Im going to get blowback for this.. but...

The most expensive drug to date is made by Alexion. Soliris costs appx. 450,000.00 per year. Yes, 450 thousand. Soliris is a drug that treats a very rare condition paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Only 1 in a million people develop this disorder. It causes the breakdown of red blood cells, and leads to fatigue and high risk of blood clots.

This is the only drug (so far) that Alexion markets. It is a large corporation, recently surpassing Genzyme - yet it only markets this one drug.

Once upon a time, pharmaceutical companies developed drugs that had a wide "consumer" base - alot of people suffering from the issue, say, like high blood pressure medications. They simply did not develop drugs for rare conditions like PNH - who could afford that kind of cost?

Now, the pharmaceutical companies ARE developing them, and insurance companies are being compelled to pay for those. In cases where insurance is not available, hospitals sometimes will be compelled to pick up the cost, and sometiimes governments. The costs end up translating into higher insurance costs and outrageous hospital fees. It of course, is only one contributor. Doctors demand to live like kings, and private insurance companies must extract greater profits year over year.

OK, now here is where I make some enemies... Once upon a time, just a few decades ago, people would unfortunately die young from these rare disorders. Theres millions of rare disorders. People would die, and nobody would even know the reason. Now we know the incredibly complex details of many of these rare diseases. But - we are running up against a serious problem. How much is too much - to provide a better chance at a full life? Are an additional 30 years at 450,000 a year - reasonable...?

These are horrible questions to answer - but in my gut, I think - no. If I developed this disorder, I would not seek out Solaris. Nor would I insist upon going on a transplant list if I found out I had a heart problem, or liver issue. I dont fear death. I have felt this way since I first wrapped my head around this issue when a friend's mother chose to forgo a heart transplant. She died within a year of a heart issue being found.

I think - and this is a spiritual thing for me - people cling too desperately to life. I think if you have confidence that there IS more at the other side, or if you simply are ok with not knowing - its easier to let go. I have decided that I am ok with dying, right now - if I were to stand up and die of a massive heart attack - well, dems da breaks. I had a good run!

I guess as korny as this sounds, I really do take the group Kansas's song Dust in the Wind very seriously and to heart.

Life does have a price tag... when nature (in her mysterious wisdom), chooses to not provide it in the amount or quality we desire. I was reading an article about a young man - 27 - whose parents were fighting for him to get the 450K drug Soliris. They managed to get the government (Canada) to cover it - for six months (PNH is a lifetime condition).

They were saying how on the drug, he had regained alot of his energy and was talking about the future and looking for work. I found that darkly ironic. He is looking for most likely - if he is lucky - say, a 32K a year job, while it is costing 450K so that he can have the energy to work...

A little too ironic... dontchya think?

Seattle Genetics Monday said the drug will cost $4,500 per vial. In its clinical trials, the company said, patients on average received three vials per dose and between seven and nine doses per treatment.

Will Obamacare pay for these treatments?...No??

Perhaps ironically for you blowhards who think you know it all, a national healthcare system would have the power to negotiate a lower price for the treatment. Do you REALLY want to defend a random company and their billion dollar profits...or do you think it might be in your own self interests as well as society's interests to defend a national medical system that enables drug companies to make lower profits but treat more people?

Which is in your interests? Which is in society's long-term interests? Economically, which is better for a society...a company earning less profits and tens of thousands of people surviving...or a company earning more profits at the expense of thousands of deaths? Answer that question with the knowledge that the value of a statistical life is $6 million...so if a thousand people die who could of been saved, the country loses $6 billion.

Strengthinnumbers:

It would be rational to seek out any treatment that would save your life. I wouldn't think you were a "better person" for not trying to do so if you came down with a rare disease.

The problem is that drug companies have limited resources, and if they can charge $450K for a treatment for a rare disease, they may develop that treatment at the expense of a treatment of a less rare disease for which they could not charge $450K. Therefore, with the decision to pursue the treatment/cure for the rare disease they put profits above lives.

I think this is where the problem lies.

Andrew

The problem lies in this - there is no way a drug cost that much to make - if factoring a 30% margin.

Dr. Salk gave it away for free. Different times.

These are horrible questions to answer - but in my gut, I think - no

Strength,

These questions cannot be answered without violating some social or moral codes. It is an age old dilemna. One can answer no and start down that slippery slope which leads to eugenics, murder and the creation of a master race, or one can say yes and support a life at a cost which is so prohibitively high, that perhaps a dozen others with lesser needs might be kept alive. There is no simple answer - unless you focus on decreasing the prices of the medication. That is the only logical approach to the problem I think.

Nightbreeze

The dilemma is whether designing a drug for a rare condition was done for profit or outlandish profit because it is rare.

If it's the latter - then shame on them. Premeditated vaulting greed.

Andrew - Oh believe me. I am not singing the praises of these drug companies that have adopted this new way of "doing business". Theres a cynicism to it that is quite distasteful to me. There used to be complaints that drug companies were ignoring people with rare disease because they weren't profitable. Well, the companies figured out how to make them profitable - just charge a king's ransom for the drug. I understand the cost analysis of why a drug with a few thousand potential patients would have to be so costly.

I dont think it is rational to seek out extension of life at any cost. And by cost, I just don't mean financially. There are people every day that have options to artificially extend their lives, and they choose not to. Families need to make decisions to take loved ones off of life support - even though there have been reports of people coming out of comas a decade or longer later...

Life and death decisions are common. It is not rational to seek out life at any cost....

I wonder if the generic of this new medication is on the market yet.

It's almost indicative of the high cost of health care in this country, without universal healthcare. It's one reason why the wealthy live longer than the rest of us.

As for the rest of us...

This is really a non-issue.

Worst Case Scenario Comparison:

Big Pharma Greed

• Big Pharma cherrypicks a graduate student who is presently researching a new approach to hogkins lymphoma treatment.
• Big P, spends about 25% of the total costs finishing this research and bringing the rx to market.
• They charge $100k per person for the treatment in order to fatten their investors pockets and keep that money flowing.
• For as much as 12 years they make obcene profits on the drug.
• For as much as 12 years only about 60% of the people who would benefit from the drug can afford it.
• For as much as 12 years about 4000 people a year will have to settle for inferior treatments.
• After 12 years (or less), generics manufacture begins and the drug becomes affordable and for the remainder of time accessible to all (or most)

VS.

Greed-Free RX Industry

• Little to none of that happens.
• For 12 years, instead of 80k or so people getting treatment and 40k or so people doing without, nobody gets treated.
• For the 12 years following that, instead of 120k or so people being treated, nobody gets treated.
• For the 12 years after that....etcetera ad infinitum

Not the only possible alternative to Greed, but the most common one.

Just like lots of music that is produced without a desire to be compensated for it is pretty good. But a quick stroll through pitchfork tells me not to count on it.

My personal prescription would be to shorten the RX patent life by half and then stipulate a royalties payment to the patent-holder for a percentage of sales of the drug no matter who manufactures it. Maybe 6% royalty for the next 6 years after the patent drops then 2% royalty on the drug forever after.

You've defined greed as the essential motivator. That's too extreme to seriously consider.

Have you bought into the 'greed is good' credo? Greed is the cancer - how do we treat that?

Part of the problem here is that the pharmaceutical companies need to recover costs of R&D of not only this medication, but also all the ones that were dropped because they discovered toxic side-effects or that turned out not to be effective. One also has to include the costs associated with the medications that seemed safe and later were discovered to have dangerous side effects and resulted in giant legal settlements (and, hence, higher liability insurance rates of course). As well, a lot of this recovery has to be from the US because we (through health insurance payments for individual and group policies, through payroll taxes for Medicare, and various taxes for Medicaid) subsidize drug development for the rest of the world (including first world nations who severely limit drug pricing).

One of the obvious problems with this medication is that it appears to only have 3000 potential patients (at least for its on-label use - there may be others uses discovered) per year in the US. And that's assuming that every patient is expected to be helped by this (I've not read if has any significant contraindications). That's a pretty small pool of people to recover the sunk R&D costs from and still make a modest profit in ongoing production costs (and tiny production runs).

Pharmaceutical companies actually doesn't have particularly high profits overall when compared to other comparable industries. If that profit gets too low, they will no longer be able, as an industry, attract capital needed to develop new promising drugs. Over the years, a lot of interesting development has come from small companies funded by investors in expectation of realizing an appropriate return in the unusual case where whatever the company is developing will actually be successful.

Would we be better off if this drug was not developed so no one could get it any price ever? Seriously, a disease with this low rate of occurrence isn't going to be at the top of the list if the government were responsible for developing it -- it just wouldn't make sense (esp. since depending on the type of ALCL, five year survival rates with with existing therapies seem to range from 30% to 80%) because "bang for buck" likely wouldn't be there without a big profit motive.

This is a quite simple economic question. How do you cure Disease A?

Well you have a few steps.

1. Invent the cure

2. Treat the afflicted

So both need to be done. But you can't do #2 without #1 first. So how do you get someone to invent a cure? Well literally hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent working on cancer treatments and cures. So how do you convince someone (or a company) to create a cure for cancer? Do you expect them to pay for $100 billion in research simply because they think it's nice? They'd go out of business really damn quick and then you wouldn't have any cure. Do you expect them to give the drug out for free once they invent it? Why would any company spend $100 billion to develop a drug they were just going to give away for free? Once again, they'd go out of business.

The only way any company is going to choose to develop any drug is if they believe the money they will make by selling the drug will exceed the money they lose from developing it. This is the only way to get any company to invent a drug. So you may scream foul play when you see a $100,000 price tag on that drug, but keep in mind that they spent BILLIONS developing it. And if it weren't going to be worth $100,000 they never would've developed it and it never would've existed.

And I know some of you would say that the government should do medical research instead of the private sector that way they're not motivated by greed. But look at Europe and Canada. Sure, maybe their citizens have better health coverage, but where do the latest drugs and treatments come from? The USA. The US develops more state-of-the-art vaccines, cures, treatments, and medical procedures than the rest of the world combined! That's because drug companies can develop these new medicines because it's profitable to do so. If it weren't profitable, they wouldn't do it.

@benkyouburito

Maybe instead of all this capital sitting around doing nothing, we tax it, and use the money to better fund our university research centers. We then manufacture and distribute the drug through our non-profit government healthcare system.

Healthcare was set on course to fail when in WW2 FDR (dare I say, democrats?) froze the ability of companies to compete for labor via wages but allowed health care to be offered as part of an employment package.

Once large corporations with thousands of employee's provided all expense paid health coverage, the idea of contracting insurance companies as a hedge against uncertain costs for treating patients created the kernel of "health insurance".

In a series of incremental steps, where insurance morphed into a "service" and the true cost of using healthcare became hidden behind contracts and negotiations with providers and different insurance companies, nobody even thinks about how insurance is supposed to work, insurance is a hedge against unusual or infrequent events that you hope never happens, and the compensation to be obtained is a pre decided fixed value. Also, on average you expect to pay more that what you get out of an insurance policy.

What is "health insurance"? You expect to use it regularly, you expect your average medical expenditures to be lower because you have it, there is no obvious pre decided amount that will be paid if you use it.

*THAT* is why it is so expensive and broken. These ultra expensive drugs are only made possible because insurance will now pay that amount, consequences to society be damned.

And one last peeve, when "choice" involves little choice at all, like medical life and death issues, it is uniquely cruel to make them choose between that or something that will utterly bankrupt a family.

"Seems a lot of drugs developed in this country have much higher prices here than they do in other countries, even though they are produced here."

Terry, you DO realize that drugs are also developed in other countries, with those country's PUBLIC funds, and are sold in THIS country at much HIGHER prices, right? If you think this is about subsidizing someone, you need to take your head out of the sand.

And all you people moaning about the poor pharmaceutical companies spending so much money to develop these drugs DO realize that they are among the most profitable industries on the planet, right? These corporations are not doing the "work of angels". I don't know any wealthy angels who charged for their services.

The cure for everything seems to be pure cash, concentrated into liquid form, and injected directly into the bloodstream.

jeff, unfortunately, you are incorrect

www.esof2004.org/pdf_ppt/press/can_europe_compete.pdf

take a look at that document. It details how and why europe has lost its position of eminence to the US in regards to R and D of new pharmaceuticals

RanRan-- Really?

You've defined greed as the essential motivator. That's too extreme to seriously consider.

First of all, let's be fair. I define greed as the most commonly effective motivator. I do not believe this position is 'too extreme'. Rational self-interest is the foundation of most schools of decision theory.

That a person, given the choice between two options, will work towards his own best interests to the harm of others rather than the other way around is not an inconsiderable concept.

That said, I did grant that there are other valid models in play here. Through funding of university research and NIH grants the Federal government invests in RX development directly. Some medicines are developed by non-profits and distributed at cost. Useful medicine does get developed outside the profit-motive, I'm just saying it is less likely to. And that is not the fault of private business.

Jake-- not a complete picture

Maybe instead of all this capital sitting around doing nothing, we tax it, and use the money to better fund our university research centers.

Very little capital is sitting around doing nothing. If there is no pharma company to invest in it it will get invested somewhere else.

I do think we need to increase funding for RX research. Studies show that publicly funded pharma research produces better and more usefull results (per $$ spent).

Rational self-interest is the foundation of most schools of decision theory.

Fine. But greed is irrational and self destructive. Let's not make it a virtue.

But greed is irrational and self destructive.

Always?

Do you think it was something other than greed that put the Rolling Stones up on stage? Or the Harry Potter books on the shelf? Nearly every one of the paintings of the renaissance masters was commissioned. How many of our armed forces would renew their enlistment if we stopped paying them?

Greed may motivate destructive behavior but it also motivated positive behavior.

Indeed, attempting to obtain greater levels of personal security and comfort is fundamentally rational.

Sure - so we should all just work for free. What do you do for a living Linda? Shouldn't you and the rest of the socialists do it for the good of the people? You know - "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need."

When it is your money - you socialist losers don't seem to anxious. In the end, if you do not reward success and achievement nothing will be created - and in the long run, the costs come down as with any new technology or product. Why doesn't Ferrari or Porsche just give those cars away???? What about large houses? What about, what about what about.

Yup -"....back in the USSR..." oh gee - I guess that idea failed too.......

Your argument might be somewhat more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that so-called "Socialist" Europe and Canada have done pretty well, and Europe, with its social safety net, is as about as innovative as the US. In addition, a disproportionately large part of the US' advancement and high tech comes from socialist states such as California and New York.

Bottom line is, success and achievement comes from taking risks. Risk are going to be taken by entrepreneurs if they aren't afraid to take risks. Provide them with a social safety net, and they will be more likely to take risks because they aren't worried about where their next meal is coming from.

Not to mention the former USSR was communist.

The fact of the matter is that medical research and development is not done by the government, it's done by private companies. A LOT of money and MANY years are invested in developing a treatment and bringing it to market, and these treatments are ALWAYS expensive when they first become available. Once they are proven, they become more commonly used and the price comes way down.

When Penicillin first went into use in the early 40's it was nearly

Private companies spend MILLIONS of dollars and many years to develop and bring a drug to market. These treatments are ALWAYS expensive when they first become available... once they are more commonly used, the price comes down.

When Penicillin was first widely used in the early 40's it was almost impossible to find and even more difficult to afford. Within five years it was less than 50 cents per dose.

Erockaustin, are you nuts? Most R&D is done with GOVERNMENT GRANTS! It's not done by private companies! Big Pharma is soooooo not into risking their money on drugs that are not tried and true. That's what we, the taxpayers, are for!

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Mark S.-You be a troglodyte. Do I hear a GED speaking? Maybe HS degree with all C's? No understanding of the world that you live in?

Have another beer. It might put you to sleep.

Erockaustin, millions and millions of dollars are wasted on ADVERTISING and doctor giveaways to create markets.

Hmmm - a multi-billion-dollar NuPharma comes up with a 100k solution to an unusual cancer - but a publicly-funded college research team come up with a two-shot solution to a common and deadly cancer. Funny how healthcare pricing works out when you don't have to pay investors and speculators...

"Sure - so we should all just work for free"...."Shouldn't you and the rest of the socialists do it for the good of the people? You know - "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need."

Mark, I would gladly work for free and i gladly accept the term "From each according to thir ability; to each according to their need". socialism is no more dirty a word than capitalism. at least with socialism health care is provided to all and a person can live. capitalism is a great system...on paper. to pursue wealth at the expense of the life of others is appalling. no one should place profit above life. and I am sure at one time capitalism was a great experiment...but i do not see how a system that supports itself on the backs on the less fortunate can survive very long...not without change...not without reform. and all i see in reforms is the massive rearranging of the system to further support the wealthy. it is wrong. no person should be forced to decide on whether to buy groceries or medicine. every human being has the right to live and their income should never be a factor in deciding how they live or if they should live. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". this is taken from the Declaration of Independence. notice the phrase all men are created equal. equal. being forced to decide on medication or food because one does not have the financial means to accomplish both while someone else does is not equal. Life is a fundamental right. no one should be forced to choose between life and death simply because they cannot afford the medication that will help them live. it is wrong and it is flawed.

so yes i would gladly work for free. and i have gladly given what i can when i can and i further gladly agree with the statement " From each according to their ability; to each according to their need." in this day of massive technological achievements and more information that at any other time in history, i am still surprised that many people do not realize that all of humanity is in the same boat and it is compassionate to take care of each other, we are all part of the human race. it saddens me when some consider chasing a piece of paper, that is not alive, that has no will that is just worth whatever the market says it is worth, over those who are alive and deserve the right same as anyone else.

Look at all the hypocrites!

If a drug company wants to profit on their hard work, why, they are profitting from human suffering.

But if Obama wants to force people to pay money to an insurance company, well, that's different, and the insurance company isn't profitting from human suffering.

The people who want Obamacare would look a hell of a lot more credible if they would just come out and say that they expect those who have more money and success to take care of those who have less. (socialism)

But this isn't about being honest, is it?

You make me sick. All of you. If you were all really being honest - every day wouldn't be such a @!$%#ing rat race. People wouldn't try and kill you to get one slot ahead in traffic or in the grocery store. You are ALL full of @!$%# faux liberal liars. You get what you earn in capitalism or what you take and get caught and punished for. Very simple - and very few will really work for free or to help their "poor and underprivileged brethren". Liars.

Look at you, Mark.

Look at what you just posted. Do you think that that inspires compassion?

Do you truly believe that I should now care more about you, or whether or not you can afford a cancer treatment? Think again.

Fend for yourself, mo-fo.

Yes - we all fend for our selves stone brain. Don't deceive yourself you @!$%#ing pussy. When did you join the @!$%#ing nunnery and give all your worldly possessions up? Riddle me that rock star.

ROTFLMAO SO MUCH HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you believe that what you just posted makes sense, or are you just so blinded by rage that you can't see anything anymore? Guess you won't be applying for any jobs as a diplomat any time soon! LOL

I'm flattered that you think I'm a rock star, but really, I'm just a normal guy who happens to be successful. Please, no more attempts to inflate my ego, I don't think I could handle it! LOL

As far as giving all my possessions up, where did that come from? I guess you're just too busy making sh!t up to make any sense. And I'm not a pussy, although I must admit that I do like pussy. What do you have against it?

I just have to remind myself that not everyone is as full of hate as the majority of liberals I have encountered here on newsvine.

You know, people like you.

They have, but you can't get it in America. You have to go to another country where they care for their citizens.

Or, at least every one gets the same access to care. It is not tied to their job or pocketbook.

They aren't looking for a cure. They are looking for something they can keep giving you every day for the rest of your life. There isn't any longterm profit in cures. Long term "maintenance" is where the money is!

Raygun did - "Don't get sick"...

there is a cure for many types of cancer and its cheap can be grown by almost anyone and turned into a concentrate. want to learn about it? google rick simpson

1992. Your money or your life.

LOL greedy corporations. what is the point of going into business if not to make money?

Why, is he going to pay for it?

Not sure about you Doug, but Obamacare is paid by people who work to support those who don't. (see socialism and Marxism)

Besides, cancer is curable. A little research on the subject will start you on your path of truth. You get to learn about all kinds of stuff like in the 1970's the US Senate concluded that big pharma was out to spread disinformation and to discredit all forms of alternative cancer cures to keep their profits high. (hint: healthy and dead people don't make for good profits)

Or how the FDA is nothing more than the strong arm of the medical profit machine which includes Monsanto (owned by big pharma). Pretty soon you get a very good picture of why GMO's are NOT regulated and why anything that shows promise for good health is shut down or discredited by junk science.

Obamacare... geesh... that's funny stuff right there....

It definitely highlights the cost to society of the privatization of medicine and basic research.

We need a national healthcare system, but we also need to continue government funding of basic medical research...rather than privatization by for-profit companies who make decisions based not on what is best for society, but what is best for their financial bottom line...and we all know cancer "treatment" is much better for their bottom line that a cancer "cure".

Keep in mind that a company typically spends 10 years and a couple hundred MILLIONS of dollars to bring a drug to market... thses drugs are ALWAYS expensive when they first become available. If it actually works, the price will drop significantly.

Patrick-1112710: Oh please. Cry me a river for the poor, embattled insurance and medical companies.

My family pays close to $8k per year JUST for health insurance, and that's with a heft deductible. And should I get sick with some dreaded disease where drugs are $100k, I can assure you that they will deny coverage.

If you have a better idea than Obama's, then please. I'm all ears.

and erockaustin, this is a rare disease. The price will never drop.

Patrick- You are not making a very convincing argument for the capitalistic democracy that we have here, but a very good argument to have a social democracy that has less influence on our political system.

There is no theoretical honesty to your views.

Keep in mind that a company typically spends 10 years and a couple hundred MILLIONS of dollars to bring a drug to market... thses drugs are ALWAYS expensive when they first become available. If it actually works, the price will drop significantly.

You should keep in mind that drug companies will charge as much as they think they can for a drug, independent of what it cost them to develop, and high efficacy will allow them to maintain high prices, not encourage them to lower them.

You should also keep in mind that there are different kinds of profits...normal and economic, for starters. Warren Buffet said it well last week when he said people and companies pursue activities that provides any profit...and that it's not necessary for them to have huge profits for an activity to be worthwhile. In other words, drug companies would do what they do whether they make $1 million in "profit" or $1 billion on any particular drug.

Refer to Jack's comment above for my thoughts about what this all means.

Patrick- You are not making a very convincing argument for the capitalistic democracy that we have here, but a very good argument to have a social democracy that has less influence on our political system.

There is no theoretical honesty to your views."

Does that mean the facts are theoretically dishonest?

Patrick, why is healthcare any different than police and fire services?

Those are "socialized", BUT it wasn't always so. It used to be that only those who could afford police and fire protection got it and those companies make a pretty profit.

My mother has dual US/Canadian citizenship. She lives in Canada.

I have always lived in the US.

She has known both "socialized medicine" and privatized medicine. I have only experienced healthcare in the US.

I asked her about the claims that are made against socialized medicine. I asked her about the quality of care. I asked her about whether or not she waits to see a specialist. I asked her if she is happy with the national healthcare system in Canada...which she pays nothing for.

She said she waits a week or so to see a specialist. She has high cholesterol and fibromyalgia, and she said her doctors have always been willing to try experimental treatments and are responsive when a treatment doesn't work. She said she is totally satisfied with her care...although she's not happy that she hasn't been cured.

I, on the other hand, am fed up with my private healthcare - Anthem Blue Cross. I have to beg for them to do anything. They never follow up with me after tests. I have to prod them along when I want something done. Sometimes I think I need to be a medical expert to deal with them because even the doctors don't seem to give a @!$%# about my concerns...and of course I pay through the nose for the privilege of being ignored.

I would take "socialized medicine" any day of the week over the for-profit system we have. Who in the world thinks that the pursuit of profit will give them adequate treatment every time they have a medical issue? Who among us believes the skyrocketing cost of healthcare will ever get any better unless the profit motive is removed from the equation or regulated? Among those who are happy with their healthcare provider, who really believes they will never get sick, and that when they get sick their provider will be motivated to work in their best interests?

As soon as you get sick you become a liability...and when that happens you will see how fast your perception of your healthcare provider will change.

Medicare is a government run health care insurance and most people seem to approve of having it. What is the difference from having Medicare just for the 65+ people than having something like Medicare for everyone? Get rid of the insurance companies and use that money to expand the Medicare system. People pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year to insurance companies to provide health care. Cut out the middle man making large profits off your backs.

As soon as you get sick you become a liability...and when that happens you will see how fast your perception of your healthcare provider will change.

I have to add...

It's always the healthy people or people with a single, well-defined disease with a well-defined cure that are happy with their private healthcare provider.

As soon as someone gets seriously sick things change. You better hope to hell we have socialized medicine if you ever come down with, say, a cancer that is not easily treated...or a chronic condition that requires ongoing treatment. People in these situations...as almost all of us will be some day...are NOT generally happy with their healthcare. They feel as though they are being ignored and not treated with respect...and therefore not receiving good medical care.

This does not happen in countries with nationalized healthcare. Do you really want to be neglected and abused at the end of your life because a company will lose less money by treating you like @!$%#?

And, perhaps ironically, costs are much lower in countries with national healthcare. Everyone is covered, so more disease is prevented or treated early, which saves a lot of money. People are not scared to deal with health issues for lack of money, so they don't wait for ten years until they get hopelessly sick and end up in the hospital emergency room with a million dollars worth of emergency care.

For profit healthcare is inherently flawed. Our healthcare disaster in the US is caused by a systemic problem in the system itself...and the problem in the system is that insurance companies and hospitals deal with healthcare on a for-profit basis.

Why does it make Obamacare more sensible? Did Obamacare come up with the alleged cure? Would Obamacare have come up with the cure if everyone paid generously to it? I guess the real question is did socialized healthcare from nations that already use it contribute to this so called cure?

@Andrew547
300,000,000 people do not live in Canada with an additional 30,000,000 unregistered illegal aliens. The quality or care would drop so much here, it would put all of us in shock.

Common,

Illegal immigrants do not make up 10% of the US population. The estimate is around 10 million, not 30.

GDP per capita in Canada is $39,000. GDP per capita in the US is $46,000. That's 18% higher.

The national healthcare plan will not cover illegal migrant workers. They are not covered now, so I don't see how offering a better deal to Americans and continuing to not cover illegal migrants would make the situation anything other than better. You can still have private insurance if you like it and can afford it....but now people who can't afford it can get affordable insurance, which lowers costs for everyone...yourself included - assuming you like your private for-profit insurance carrier - which I would find strange, because for anyone other than people who are very healthy, for-profit insurance companies suck. In other words, they're awesome as long as you don't need them to pay for anything substantial and/or ongoing. When you do get sick you become their enemy and they will deny you treatment any way they can.

Do some research on national healthcare plans in other countries if you don't believe it's a good deal. Get everyone insured, get the government in on negotiating prices for a large block of people, get preventative healthcare for millions of people who would otherwise become sick and a burden on society. This is a win win, and that's how it plays out in every country that treats healthcare as a right rather than a for-profit business. Look at the health statistics of US citizens vs. the rest of the world. We rank among 3rd world nations on many standards.

andrew,

I think the more important issue is that americans' baseline health is significantly worse than canadians. While covering every relatively thin, healthy canadian would not be terribly expensive, the cost of doing the same for the sedentary, obese, lazy americans would be substantially more.

Not to mention, nonwithstanding the anecdotal claims made above, the supreme court of canada decided in 2005 that the long waits for care were detrimental to the overall health. Look it up

Google: Run From The Cure

Cancer treatment for everyone..

Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills"

- Adolf Hitler

Monkey@Keyboard - Post #9.1

Is this the same impotent, pedophile homosexual sadistic murderous crackpot drug addict that finally did the only right and proper act in his whole wretched lunatic so-called life - I mean the one proper deed was to put a gun inside his mouth, he was wishing it was some German sausage lol, and blew his lizard head off - Yes - that psychopath we Americans kicked his ass along with the Russians, Brits and all the rest - we kicked his ass good and sent millions of his blind followers out of this earth, - YES - and we will send millions more of these Nazis out of this world - headless with their empty heads being blown off at their own hands or we will do the job - the choice is yours? Amen

So you're saying there is simply no basic research done at universities or by researchers receiving federal grants that will lead to a cure?

I understand hospitals and pharmaceutical companies profit by treating and not curing cancer, but are you sure "the system" that benefits from cancer treatments but not cures is really the driving force behind all research?

Andrews that is just my opinion based on my observations. I'm not discounting honest dedicated researchers out there who believe they are doing something positive. However, cancer research operates like a corporation-in which profits are all important.

Thus my comment that the top echelon does not want a cure. And if something does work it is restricted by slapping a huge price tag on it-

To me cancer is a money making disease. It is up to the people to research prevention, the right foods, and becoming informed.

In 1937, Hitler ordered that all "human beings" in hospitals in Germany be euthanized if due to Alzheimer's, mental retardation, psychiatric and ANY other chronic psychical disease. The list was endless. And so it was done. Saved him a lot of money.

John-And?

In effect, if people can't afford the cancer cures spoken of in the article, they will die. Someone in a previous post who believes in both the "free" market system and that cancer is curable doesn't seem to understand the lack of money is a death sentence.

Insurance companies can deny you treatment if at any time a doctor has screwed up your paper work. Without the healthcare reform, an insurance company can deny you for a pre-existing condition. What this means is that if you change jobs or insurance coverage, and they can prove that you had cancer prior to the change, you don't get treated. So pray that if the Republicans take power that they do not completely dismantle reform.

I'm not requiring socialism. I'm requiring that the medical establishment, from doctors to pharmaceutical companies to health insurance companies, not be complete schmucks. They can still make a boatload of money and not have to give up government funding for research. And don't forget their tax breaks. I'm not.

Bouncer, your letter reminded me of a prominent scientist I knew at the U. of Pittsburgh some years ago. He had been a resident at Children's Hospital during the last polio epidemic in the 1950s. He talked about how the doctors there fought to save the children, how the kids lived in iron lungs to breathe. He told how the exhausted residents would say that if ever polio was eliminated, they could close Children's Hospital. Of course, polio is gone and the hospital is huge! In addition, I know many cancer researchers and physicians. Please believe me when I say each and every one of them would give everything they have to CURE cancer! Several of them have come into the field because they have lost, and continue to lose, family members, including their own children, to cancer. To say they do not want to cure this cruel disease, only make money, is the biggest misconception ever. Should we say the same about nurses? After all, they make money treating sick people, too.

Bouncer,

You are so right. After I got diagnosed with Gastroparesis, they told me that
the good drug that was actually doing the best for the disease was taken off the
market because of side-affects, but my doctor then whispered to me it was
because it worked too well and the company couldn't make any money off of
it.

John-2357938
stalin just shot his people, so what?

In 1937, Hitler ordered that all "human beings" in hospitals in Germany be euthanized if due to Alzheimer's, mental retardation, psychiatric and ANY other chronic psychical disease. The list was endless. And so it was done. Saved him a lot of money.

John - just think if we decided to get rid of people who posted thoughtless, offensive, and/or meaningless comments online...

stalin just shot his people, so what?

Actually Hitler shot or hanged about half of the 17 million he murdered. On one occasion I think in Poland or Croatia or somewhere similar the SS spent a week digging a huge 50 foot deep pit, gathered up 35,000 Jews, marched them into the pit, stripped them naked, and machine gunned them all to death.

the idea that diseases aren't cured for a financial motive is laughable

Curing diseases is HARD. Gosh, how do you people not understand that

The idea that you can have a medicine to "cure" the 2nd leading cause of death in this country is ridiculous.

If you think its so easy why don't you do it.

The fact is most diseases are managed now rather than cured, because that's simply where we are in medical science. Most rheumatologic, pulmonary, and cardiac diseases are managed rather than cured.

Uhhh....

A medical scientist makes roughly 40,000 a year. A teacher makes roughly 35,000 a year. A lawyer makes over 150,000 a year. A day trader can easily make over 200,000 a year. You can Google how much politicians make. You can Google how much oil company execs make a year.

The differential is staggering.

To say the least.

A side comment but related some what: today, I had a dr visit and I found out that he does not honor Blue Cross Blue Shield any more- thus I have to get another Dr. This is the rub:

After talking with him I found out that because he has the lowest admission rate than other Drs Blue Cross does not want him...in other words, if you do a good job and keep people out of hospitals Blue Cross Blue Shield loses money. He told me that the Drs that have high admisson rates get to continue business with BC.

The system is sick, riddled with greed and broken. So I stand on my original statement, especially because I know there are cures and techniques to reverse cancer out there but would be ignored if found out. It's all about money-and yes, cancer is a big money maker like it or not. My comment above about BC dropping my Dr is just an example of corporate greed. The cost of this medication is another example. Promising people that a "cure is around the corner" is said to make people donate more money.

I'm not disputing that research is hard- yes, it's difficult to come up with a new drug. But I suspect that above all the researchers there is a watchdog that allows some to go through and others suspended, especially is one has a great potential for a cure. Cure is not what the cancer watchdogs want to hear-cynical as it may appear, cancer for them is a big money maker-keep it alive a field drugs which delay death. If you get a good one charge the moon restricting those who will get it.

Bouncer-310407

Bingo!

dingdingdingdingding.....winner....WINNER.winner.......

It's a @!$%#ty feeling finding that sort of thing out for the first time.

I really have no way of consoling you on that one.

It's best to just give yourself time. Your mind will deal with it in one way or another.

When you end up tripping a couple more times. And finally fall out of the Matrix. Don't worry. There are others like you here.

We will be waiting. You can now take of your tin foil hat. You will not be needing it anymore.

I AM NOT BEING RUDE WITH THAT LAST COMMENT. It is genuinely felt that you have begun your evolution. Let them crack jokes about me. I don't care. You now know! It is customary for me to deal with it. I have armed myself with the terminology to deal with it.

Good luck

P.S. Don't let yourself get all frazzled over it. Start being picky with whom you share your knowledge of this with. For they will never believe you. Until they trip and smack themselves in the face at the walls of the Matrix.

How much of the research that contributed to the development of this drug was paid for with federal research grants?

Zero? I don't know.

When you have a drug BUSINESS, you have to consider the cost to produce a product, the cost to market it, and the number of patients that are going to buy it--not just the number of patients that need it.

Forget about your Medicaid or private health insurance company paying for this drug.

These products are priced based on what the manufacturers can get, not on the costs of R&D and production.

When you have a drug BUSINESS...

Exactly the problem. When did the medical profession become merchants of death?

CBO says that %50 of all costs are federal grants. Government gets %0 of the profit.

People keep referring to the billions that Pharma spends on research...so where does all that money go that is raised through fundraising for cancer research? and why is that so many medical trials are done at university labs? and many drug companies have been making record profits for years? I understand that there is a need to be profitable, but it seems that it has become a need at all cost.

If big pharma could patent you......THEY WOULD. If marijuana were to be legalized tomorrow. The human civilization wouldn't need Big Pharma the next day.

So it's not necessarily the Big Pharma wanting to patent it. It's just that Big Pharma can forsee its own demise.

And if it doesn't pan out they get tax write-offs.....

Rubbish. Taxes are going up - doubling, tripling every year. The government is intruding in our lives - monitoring everything we do and say, restricting what we can and cannot do. Nobody but the rich pay any taxes at all anymore and they're too lazy to go and make jobs when they can't find jobs. Corporations pay 50% income tax on everything they make and are so oppressed they must move overseas. Pretty soon there won't be any freedom for any of us. I heard it all on Fox News. Or are you letting the liberal press tell you the truth again?

GCV - What country do you live in. Secretaries pay a greater percentage of taxes than do the CEO's they work for. Your misinformed and pretty much an idiot.

I hope you're just being sarcastic, cause if you're not then I would feel really sorry for you. Do me a favor by getting your right hand off of the fairytale book you called your "bible," your left hand off your nuts, and start getting your facts straight. What corporations are paying 50% in taxes again? They don't even pay close to that percentage-- after all the tax write-offs and corporate jet tax incentive, they pay something like around 17% only. The only thing that gets taxed at 50% is the bonuses that corporations pay to their employees. That's by the way, is another way for the corporation to get more tax write-0ffs by letting the little guy get taxed like crazy while they get to keep all their money to buying up more politicians.

I took GCV to be sarcastic and not serious.

@Terriels-- Just in case...

You just don't get. Do you know how much it costs to get your favorite corrupt politician elected these days. The drug companies have to pay outrageous amounts of money to bribe... er.. finance the politicians election campaigns. All those nasty attack commercials by mindlessly stupid politicians that don't have a productive and useful contribution to make to society don't come cheap you know.

Health care products in general are notoriously overpriced. Not unlike the $75,000 toilet seats the military used to pay for in the 80's.

Try to find an honest accounting of how much the company paid to develop this drug. Never believe big Pharma. They lie.

Google as little. All sorts of info on the lies big Pharma spreads. This is but one source. There are many.

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-myth-of-high-drug-research/

Try to find an honest accounting of how much the company paid to develop this drug. Never believe big Pharma. They lie.

Then don't buy their drug. Like I said, yesterday you didn't even know this drug existed.

Wow, @ctviking, must be you either don't worry about ever having cancer, or you can afford treatment out of pocket. There have been any number of scandals going back to the heyday of the of the original HMOs wherein people were denied coverage to cover the bottom line of the insurance companies.

If you don't have the money or an insurance company that isn't going to screw you, you wind up under a death sentence.

terriels--- you make a good point.

BINGO Frank! I was waiting to read a post w/ the "March of Dimes" analogy, you got it... times have changed... haven't they.