Drug Giant Pledges Cheap Medicine For World's Poor

bmsleight writes in with a Guardian piece on the decision of the world's second biggest pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline, to radically shift its attitude towards providing cheap drugs to millions of people in the developing world. "[The new CEO] said that GSK will... cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US — and less if possible — and make drugs more affordable in middle-income countries such as Brazil and India; put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a 'patent pool,' so they can be explored by other researchers; and reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics, and staff."

Comments

It's called market segmentation

[wisty]

It's not generous, it's just good sales. Maybe greed is good though.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[dkleinsc]

Also, since we're talking about drugs here, the phrase "first hit is free" comes readily to mind.

Another factor here is that drug companies want Latin America in particular to develop medical systems dependent on their drugs, rather than trying to replicate the Cuban model which doesn't rely on US drug companies and still manages to get pretty good results. It's sort of like what Intel and MS did to the OLPC project.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Aladrin]

Greed is good, actually, when used properly. When used improperly, it's very destructive to the person who is greedy, as well as everything they touch with it.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[crmarvin42]

So, their bastards for charging more than people can afford for life saving medicine that now only costs cents to manufacture (having already spent the millions on R&D), but they are also bastards when they reduce the cost, because they'll get everyone hooked on their drugs.

This strikes me as a Win/Win type situation for BlackHat conspiracy folks.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[b4dc0d3r]

Greed is destructive, I think you mean capitalism is good when used properly. When used improperly, it's greed. Greed leads to things like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you understand how the goose works and let it work for you, that's using resources properly.

Greed in the world of big pharma means stifling diabetes cures because insulin is such a cash cow. Treating symptoms with long courses of drugs instead of solving the problem. Greed is setting up a financial house of cards, and not caring what happens to the markets after you cash out.

When you're talking about greed, you may have meant lenders who decided to loan out money, getting a good return on investment while helping people who need loans. This is normal capitalism. Lending people more than they can afford to pay back and enjoying your bonus while they get evicted, that's greed, and it helps no one.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Sponge Bath]

I would separate 'greed' from normal self interest.

I consider greed to be excess self interest that misses the larger picture and results in a worse outcome for all in the long run.

Enlightened self interest says I can benefit more over time by not trying to brutally screw everyone else in the world in the near term.

I own a hefty chunk of GSK stock, so I will find out first hand how this plays out financially in the long run.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[goombah99]

Does the cuban model respect the patents on the pills?

Like digital music replication of medicines is not always expensive. But the R&D costs are enormous.

For example, just to get single drug through clinical trials is, according to Merc, about half a billion dollars, and most drugs in the pipeline will not make it all the way to the end. And that does not include any of the R&D costs to discover the drug.

If cuba just replicates drugs without royalties then one could presumably cut costs enormously for medicine.

How long before we see competing bills in congress allowing or preventing the re-importation of cheap 3rd world medicines. Recall the bills to allow/prevent canadian drug re-imports or imports of leatril from mexico.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

their bastards for charging more than people can afford

The word you were looking for there was "they're", not "their".

HTH. HAND.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Daemonik]

I'd feel more sympathy for this position if 75% of drugs being marketed weren't designed directly to compete against another companies drugs. Viagra vs Cialis for example.

Furthermore, the R&D costs and the costs of clinical trials are dwarfed by the marketing costs. Which is one big problem with pharmaceuticals in the US. Their use should be decided by a doctor or peer reviewed journals, not a marketing team.

I'm also curious how GSK will react regarding importing of these cheap drugs back into the US market via web pharmacies and their like. Corporations the size of GSK do not make altruistic moves unless they're getting something back in return, so expect someone to be putting forward a bill to eliminate drug imports into the US soon.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Hal_Porter]

I'd feel more sympathy for this position if 75% of drugs being marketed weren't designed directly to compete against another companies drugs. Viagra vs Cialis for example.

So it would be better if one drug company had a monopoly on treatment of each disease?

I'm also curious how GSK will react regarding importing of these cheap drugs back into the US market via web pharmacies and their like. Corporations the size of GSK do not make altruistic moves unless they're getting something back in return, so expect someone to be putting forward a bill to eliminate drug imports into the US soon.

Now this I can agree with. There should be free imports of prescription drugs from the rest of the world to the US. It would make them cheaper there. Of course it would dissuade market segmentation like this, since GSK wouldn't be able to sell drugs cheaply in poor countries and expensive in rich ones. Still I live in rich country, so I'm in favour of allowing arbitrage.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[moosesocks]

I'd feel more sympathy for this position if 75% of drugs being marketed weren't designed directly to compete against another companies drugs. Viagra vs Cialis for example.

Is that such a bad thing? Although healthcare is by no means a "free market," competition should in theory drive prices down, assuming all else is equal.

Of course, all else is NOT equal. If a new drug wants to compete with an already-existing product, it's got to have some sort of competitive advantage.

If a new cholesterol-reduction drug works 10% better, and with fewer side-effects, it is indeed competing with an already-existing product. However, it's directly benefitting the patient by doing so. Without competition, there is no progress.

Similarly, having multiple drugs on the market to treat the same condition can be extremely beneficial. If a patient is allergic to, or doesn't respond to the first medication, it's nice to have a second alternative.

(Also, can you provide a citation for the allegation that Marketing outweighs R&D? Although I agree with your sentiment, most marketing is directed at physicians in the form of educational materials, rather than patients)

Re:It's called market segmentation

[dkleinsc]

Does the Cuban model respect the patents on the pills?

Their health care system is geared towards reducing the need for pills: general practitioners in Cuba focus a lot of their efforts on preventative care, and also receive extensive training in herbal, nutritional, and behavioral solutions to health problems. This was started in large part out of necessity: Cuba simply can't afford a lot of pills, and hasn't had significant access to US goods since 1959.

So whether they respect the patent isn't really important, because they can't get the pill to copy in the first place. The reason the Cuban system is particularly relevant to discussions of Latin American health care is that many countries (notably Bolivia, Venezuela, and Brazil) have all made efforts to copy Cuba's methods.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[hairyfeet]

Actually many of the drugs are found by universities using federal dollars and THEN the drug companies buy the rights and bend you over. Allow me to introduce you to a drug I am familiar with as I am on it-Remicade, which as you can see on the Wiki was developed at NY school of medicine. Do you know how much they charge for 8 treatments(1 year) of the stuff? $67,898. That's right, you could shoot pure platinum into your veins for cheaper.

And it isn't like it only treats some super rare condition either. It has been approved and works wonders on psoriasis, Crohn's disease, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, sarcoidosis and ulcerative colitis. Wow, that's a lot of folks. I wonder how many are suffering now because they can't actually get it? I would LOVE to see the profit margins on the drug, because I'm guessing by the tiny little vials they are probably making in the 2000-4000% profit range. Because you certainly don't get much for your $67k.

but if you look up the numbers the biggest expense of the major drug companies is NOT R&D, it is advertising. All those irritating ads pushing you to tell your doctor you want their pill o' the week. I bet the profit margins on THOSE drugs are beyond insane which is why they push them so hard. But if we don't get a handle on the multi $$$$% profits the drug companies are making we are ALL going to lose, as we simply can't pay for the drugs for ourselves as well as the "charity" they show the third world (and make up the difference with our insurance). The gravy train is coming to an end and the economy ain't going to be getting better anything soon folks. I actually know folks living by candlelight because the choice was paying their rent or their lights. So the drug companies better learn to live on the margins like the rest of us unless they want us to go to nationalized health care.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[crmarvin42]

I know that Advertising is insane in the US. I'm all for banning direct to consumer advertising for medications again. Lifting the ban was stupid, and anti-consumer. Most MD's are not trained highly enough to be able to see through a lot of the drug companies BS, the general population is even less prepared.

I was just commenting on the dichotomy between the persistent POV on /. that the drug companies charge too much (probably true), and the idea that somehow dropping prices for those that can't afford medicine somehow also makes them Evil.

Would I like to pay less for my med? Damn right I would! However, just because they are not planning on changing my rates any time soon doesn't mean that dropping the rates to be affordable elsewhere is somehow a "Bad Thing".

Re:It's called market segmentation

[localman]

That's what makes them conspiracy folks: they can twist everything into a conspiracy. It's like seeing faces in clouds... or grilled cheese sandwiches.

I'm sure the reason GKS is doing this is for business reasons, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. When I am generous I do it with the selfish motive of feeling good. Enlightened self interest is what makes the world go around.

Cheers.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Daemonik]

(Also, can you provide a citation for the allegation that Marketing outweighs R&D? Although I agree with your sentiment, most marketing is directed at physicians in the form of educational materials, rather than patients)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

Marketing is double the cost of research. That probably does not also include lobbying fees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby

The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Daemonik]

Is that such a bad thing? Although healthcare is by no means a "free market," competition should in theory drive prices down, assuming all else is equal.

Of course, all else is NOT equal. If a new drug wants to compete with an already-existing product, it's got to have some sort of competitive advantage.

If a new cholesterol-reduction drug works 10% better, and with fewer side-effects, it is indeed competing with an already-existing product. However, it's directly benefitting the patient by doing so. Without competition, there is no progress.

Similarly, having multiple drugs on the market to treat the same condition can be extremely beneficial. If a patient is allergic to, or doesn't respond to the first medication, it's nice to have a second alternative.

While true that having more than one chemical formulation is good for the patient in cases of drug resistances, I don't feel the pharma industry is quite truthful when they complain of research costs when a vast segment of their products are near copies of drugs competitors already pushed through to the market, just altered by a molecule or two.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Marble68]

Uh, by your own words, it's not cents to manufacture. Simple accounting. It's cents PLUS the MILLIONS spend on R&D of that drug PLUS the MILLIONS spend on the R&D of numerous OTHER drugs that never made it to market.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[mpoulton]

I would LOVE to see the profit margins on the drug, because I'm guessing by the tiny little vials they are probably making in the 2000-4000% profit range. Because you certainly don't get much for your $67k.

You just can't believe that anything could be that expensive to manufacture, can you? Do you know how they get the stuff? Read your own Wiki link, and the associated pages. It cannot be produced synthetically - it must be extracted from living organisms with functional immune responses. This means using either lab animals or cell cultures and carefully extracting, concentrating, and purifying the antibodies they produce. The difficulty and expense of this process makes all biologically-produced monoclonal antibody "drugs" EXTREMLY expensive. Yours is one of the cheaper ones. Some have to be produced in and extracted from human subjects, and cost an order of magnitude more than yours!

Re:It's called market segmentation

[crmarvin42]

I think you are being needlessly dense. I'm well aware that they often spend millions if not billions on R&D for new medication. However, once they've discovered, licensed, and gotten the manufacturing kinks out the physical pills themselves often cost only pennies or a handful of dollars to actually make at the factory.

I'm not against them recouping their initial investment, or their making a profit off of their hard work after they've "Broken Even". My comment was not about the financial system they've developed where by they subsidize future development with the prices they charge now, only that the black hat conspiracy nuts want it both ways. They want to vilify them for charging too much (Which happens in some cases, but probably not even the majority when you consider the input costs you make reference to), but they also want to vilify them for reducing prices in some countries but not others.

Personally I have no real problem with their decision to price the drugs at a lower point in poorer countries. We get the benefit of the drugs first b/c they are often developed here. If that means we get a higher ticket price, that makes sense as well.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[The Spoonman]

Oh, good, you've contributed in a positive way to the conversation. This whole issue had been a mire of point-counterpoint until you stepped in and made it clear for all of us. Where would we be without you and your spectacular mind?

Re:It's called market segmentation

[davester666]

This is like IBM asking their developers to the third world to compete with people there for IBM jobs.

Since poor people in the West have so much trouble with affording health care and medicine there, they should steal an inner tube and float to a third world country where they can get the same pills for next to nothing.

Everybody wins. The poor get their pills, and the standard of living in the West goes up (because all the riff-raff have left).

Right?

Re:It's called market segmentation

[maxume]

Start a not for profit drug company. Charge sane prices.

If profit margins and advertising are truly the things driving up the costs of all drugs, you should be able to put the entrenched players out of business in a decade or so.

If you look into the alarms raised about marketing costs, you will see that the claims are based on selling, general, and administrative expenses, which do include the extensive sums that are spent on advertising and marketing, but also include silly things like salaries, pensions and building maintenance.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[retchdog]

Maybe the World Bank could make it a condition for poor countries getting loans, that they "volunteer" some of their citizens for this project. They could even get a partially-subsidized patent grant in exchange. It's a win-win and it's fair too, because they don't have anything to offer but miserable, uneducated and useless masses?

Re:It's called market segmentation

[dbIII]

All those irritating ads pushing you to tell your doctor you want their pill o' the week

That sort of advertising is actually illegal in Australia unless it is aimed specificly at medical professionals in the sort of media that only they are exposed to.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[CodeBuster]

the Cuban model which doesn't rely on US drug companies and still manages to get pretty good results.

Either your standard for pretty good is very low or you are talking about the health care that Communist Party elites and foreigners with hard currency receive and NOT the health care received by ordinary Cubans.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely right about that. That particular company shows extraordinary lack of concern for its customers, in my experience. Good business doesn't have to mean greed, but in this case I believe it does.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[crmarvin42]

WTF? Are you being sarcastic?

At the moment, the drug companies say that drug X costs Y dollars everywhere. Then they look and see that there are a lot of people that can't afford to pay Y dollars b/c it's 20, 50, 100, 200% of their monthly income. They've decided to take a smaller profit in order to sell drug X for Z dollars where it's too expensive, but still charge Y dollars where the market can bare the weight. That's smart marketing and can save lives in 3rd world countries.

Explain to me how that translates into forcing the poor out of this country? Not everyone in the US can afford the current prices for all of the medications at price Y. However, in which ever third world country they decide to mark the price down, not everyone will be able to afford the drug at Z dollars. To say that an incomplete fix is some how worse than making no change at all is asinine.

No one is saying this move will completely fix the inequities inherent in who needs care vs who can afford care (that's the job of medicare/medicaid here in the US), but you appear to be the only one that says treating some that wouldn't normally be able to afford any care by dropping the prices in the poorest countries is somehow going to make things worse.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, patents give the drug (and other) companies far too much power, more than the patent system was meant to. Sure, if a company spends R&D money to produce something useful they deserve to hold the rights to selling that product for long enough to recover the R&D costs. Maybe even a little extra for future R&D. But once that money has been made, why should a company continue to hold the exclusive right to selling that product? As can be seen with the drug companies' current practices, patents create a monopoly on certain drugs and the drug companies can charge insane amounts of money for them, depriving the sick of much needed help, when other companies could step in and sell the drugs for much cheaper if it weren't for that patent-created monopoly.

In my opinion, patents should expire the moment that R&D money has been recovered. The current patent expiration time limits are ridiculous.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Tellarin]

That's one of the reasons that medical drug advertising is not allowed in several countries.

It always amazes me to see so many drug ads and insurance ads in some countries, like the US. I really find it funny when they start to quickly list side effects. Especially on the radio. :)

Re:It's called market segmentation

[Tellarin]

It's not really a question of a country affording the pills.

One needs to remember that when that happens, countries can decide to ignore some patents for certain drugs because the manufacturers charged too much for the drugs. Brazil and India actually did that and then suddenly the original manufactures lowered prices from 50 to 80 percent in most cases not to lose the monopoly on the drugs.

Re:It's called market segmentation

[funwun]

The Wiki link you provided shows a price of $1000 per dose. That would be $8000. How does the price get to be $67,898/year?

Dude. What about the World's rich?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Consider that just because a nation's average income is relatively high, it does not follow that everyone in that country is able to buy the products at the higher price. Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?

That's not social justice. It's social prejudice.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[easyTree]

Social prejudice is this year's racial prejudice.

Let ppl make a ham-fisted attempt at atoning for past abuses will ya?, jeez ;-)

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Cyberax]

Why should you get cheap iPods then?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[jonaskoelker]

Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?

Because in Soviet Russia^W^W^H Capitalist America, you can increase profits that way. And that's encouraged. In a market where you're free to not trade, any trade you do is good for the people who trade (according to simplistic Econ 101 principles, and discounting negative externalities, and ...).

Whether selling cheap medicine in poor countries is a good thing in practice is another question.

That's an attempt at an answer to your question. I want to add to that the following:

I find it strange that you say people are lucky to live in (er, be born in) a shithole; the two don't add up. Even if you isolate their luck to the case of medicine prices, what they have to pay might upset their budget more (or less, could as well be) than you paying what you have to pay where you live.

Spending $AMOUNT $CURRENCY on medicine means you forgo the option of spending $AMOUNT $CURRENCY on something else. How bad that is for you depend on what else you could have gotten and how much you want it. That varies between cultures depending on their shitholiness.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[jellomizer]

It is a case of supply vs. demand. It is just business. Each country or area has a different supply vs. demand curve. If the average population makes 30k a year there will be a different curve then people living on 10k a year. Getting the right balance will maximize profits and matching pricing for the right areas is more profitable.

This happens in all sectors, say you are traveling around the world and you give the bell boy a 5 dollar tip. In the US that will like $5 for them (Deli-Meat for a week). In the country where the average is about $10k that is a $15 (Good cuts for meat for dinner about 2 days and the deli-meat) for the really poor countries where people make $1k a year. That would be close to a $150 tip (Food for a family for a week or 2).

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that just because a nation's average income is relatively high, it does not follow that everyone in that country is able to buy the products at the higher price.

If the nation has a screwed up health system, that's hardly GSKs problem.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MadMidnightBomber]

Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs. (There is a small, flat charge per prescription)

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[east coast]

shitholiness

I think I see a new meme coming out of this one.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[0xdeadbeef]

It's called price discrimination. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to choose the price at which they sell the goods that they own, that they produced? Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[leromarinvit]

It's called health insurance. Most developed nations have it. The rich pay way more than the poor, so that even the poor can afford medical care.

Sucks to live in the USA I guess.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[nurb432]

Its how things seem to work around here. If you are capable of barely making it, you get screwed.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[ir]

No, everyone else has to pay for your shitty health habits through taxation.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's much better to pay twice as much for private healthcare, then die anyway because your uninsured neighbour infects you with a nasty disease they left untreated. Or the uninsured bus driver with the untreated dodgy knee wipes out your car.
News: You pay for other people's ill health one way or another. If they're too ill to work, they're not paying taxes - so you're paying more.

Still, no point in trying to explain civilization to retards eh?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Ginger Unicorn]

yeah, along with all those people born with or stricken down with ailments over which they have no control are just parasitic scum that should be left to die in a ditch lest they put too much of a strain on the taxpayer.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, people who are sick don't have much disadvantage and you can be sure that once you get sick, your life plan isn't screwed up...

That's definitely something I'm willing to pay for. Those few abusing the system are negligible.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[internerdj]

Well the good news is the people in these poverty stricken countries will now be able to sell medicines to us rich Americans, by undercutting the costs of the companies that sold them the medicines in the first place. Except the medicines will just be seized by the governments in the first place and they will make the profit.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[penix1]

That would be all well and good but they aren't atoning for shit here. Let me count the ways for you:

1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...

2. They are putting some of their patents in a "patent pool", whatever that means, instead of doing the real "right thing" and releasing those patents to the public domain. Torpedo patents anyone...

3. This isn't an attempt to "do good" more than it is an attempt to stop countries from ignoring their patents and developing generics on their own. A little profit is better than no profit in their eyes. Besides, as 1 above suggests, they will make it up off the richer countries.

This is a multi-billion dollar a year industry we are talking about here. They have no conscience and no morals. Profit is their only motivator. No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance. This is doubly so with the drug industry.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

The small, flat charge per perscription only applies if you have the misfortune to be English, as opposed to in the glorious independent nations of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I have a medical condition that can only be treated with a certain prescription medication. This medication is patent encumbered, and therefore has been unavailable in generic form since its debut nearly 20 years ago. My wife and I make a decent salary (probably right in the middle of middle class), but I can NOT afford this medicine. Without insurance it would cost 500$ a month. With insurance it's still 250$ a month. So now I do without. It's difficult for my wife and I, all because of greed by big pharma.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Nazlfrag]

I'm not from the UK, there they have a comprehensive national insurance policy. Still, when I look at the USA who tax their citizens at a rate of 2.9% for medical cover that covers only the disabled and elderly (>65), and compare that to the 1.5% we pay here in Australia that gets comprehensive health cover for every citizen, I just cannot comprehend the mentality that a state run hospital service is somehow less necessary to a modern functioning society than a state run fire service or police service. They are all vital to a functional stable society, and it is in the best interests of every citizen to have full coverage for all.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[easyTree]

Michael Moore had a fair attempt in Sicko. Check it out at your earliest convenience...

Of course, he can't be right because he smells like a *liberal* and we know that's bad..

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[D Ninja]

Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?

This statement boggles my mind.

Sure, the people born in the war-torn, poverty-ridden, disease-ridden, crime-laden hell hole of a country is getting cheaper medicine. Of course, then they're also dealing with war, heavy poverty, disease and crime.

What Americans fail to understand is that, even the most poor off and worst person in America is (many times) still doing better than some of "rich" people in other countries.

Of course, if you want to go live in said countries so you can get cheaper medicine, be my guest. You might learn a thing or two.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Slashdot is not generally known for its strong understanding of sarcasm. Use the tag Luke!

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[wisty]

Health habits wouldn't correlate with insurance much because the cost is less than the suffering.

As for the efficiencies of public health, when was the last time a HMO was accused of efficiently delivering customer treatments? They don't act too different to Soviet Central Planners, except they aint as altruistic. At least, that's what I saw on Sicko.

It's not like health insurance is an efficient market - you can't change (without a lot of costs), and customers don't know the difference between good and bad service (until their treatment is denied, and they can't change due to pre-existing conditions).

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey you sound like a really great guy, I really like your way of thinking. Those lucky lucky lucky poor bas*ards, I find it disgusting they might be able to afford medicines without being unlucky enought to be born into the first world like us poor chumps....

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Taxation! You Yanks love to spout that line as if you don't pay any.

I'm from the UK. I live in the US. I have paid taxes under both systems. I haven't notice much difference in taxes.

(Except for the having to pay for some of my health insurance, getting billed for copays, dealing with the shitty hospitals and doctors that try to bill you even though their agreement with the insurance companies forbids it, dealing with the shitty insurance companies that manage to forget what their contract states they cover, etc.)

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, that's real helpful, that is.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

...right in the middle of middle class...but I can NOT afford...500$ a month.

You either have an unrealistic idea of "middle class", or you're living FAR above your means.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[drinkypoo]

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Sure. He's not entitled to the sweat of my brow. Much of the research is actually done at schools and universities which receive public funding.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MadMidnightBomber]

*snicker* I've been seen by a nurse twice in the last two years - once needed a bandage on my finger, once didn't need any treatment. Sorry for my huge drain on the nation's coffers.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[EddyPearson]

Solidarity hey?

Fuck that.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[greetings programs]

Sir, you are an idiot. Why do you feel entitled to everything the world has to offer just because you were born in a so called first world country?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MadMidnightBomber]

(I put on my pedant hat and robe) No, it applies if you happen to live in England regardless of nationality.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[geminidomino]

What's your idea of middle class, then, that someone can afford $500/mo on top of mortgage, bills, food, and other necessities?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[TubeSteak]

1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...

And how do they plan to stop 1st world countries from importing drugs from their developing brethren?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[xouumalperxe]

Either the research done at the schools was funded by them, and they're "entitled" to it, or the research was done by the schools for some other reason, and they either licensed it (go argue with the licensor about the fees if they weren't enough) or the research was put in the public domain, which everybody is free to put to use as they see fit (but they still need the facilities to put the research into practice anyway, an investment that I hope you agree is fair they recoup). Whichever way you turn it, they're not stealing the sweat off your brow.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[penix1]

And how do they plan to stop 1st world countries from importing drugs from their developing brethren?

By introducing legislation banning it. How else? You don't think they have paid out those millions in bribes....er...Campaign contributions for nothing do you? You don't think they hired that army of lobbyists for the good of the people do you?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Veggiesama]

Consider that just because a nation's average income is relatively high, it does not follow that everyone in that country is able to buy the products at the higher price. Why should people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country be blessed with lower-priced medicine?

That's not social justice. It's social prejudice.

Aww, I'm so sorry that you weren't be born into a malaria-infested swamp ravaged by ethnic warfare and that your country doesn't have coupons for 75% off popular drugs.

Cry me a river, then sign up for Medicaid, you ungrateful bastard.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[xouumalperxe]

Since you seem to have a me-first attitude, I won't even try to pitch the idea of being, you know, a decent person. Instead, consider this: Pharmaceuticals are just as entitled to thinking of themselves first and foremost as you are.

Which brings us to economics 101: Assume that demand for medication is very elastic between the price points we're considering. By lowering the prices, (price * units sold) actually goes up, and they make more of a profit. (In developed countries, demand for medication tends to be very unelastic, but at the prices we're talking about, the high elasticity assumption is probably true for third-world countries.)

Of course, pharmaceuticals being allowed to think of themselves first and foremost, they're also allowed to leech every last cent off of you while being nice to some poor shmuck so they can sleep at night. Or perhaps there's people in there with some sense of social justice, who are trying to put some of that in practice.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Xtravar]

Those are all very good points.

I also wonder if they are trying to be 'good' before the day of judgment comes. And by that, I mean health care reform in the US. Or perhaps a drug company bailout of some sort.

I'm just thinking: if one of the US car manufacturers had been extra pursuant of green technologies, or even just displayed some sort of extra good will, they'd probably have gotten better treatment at the bailout hearings.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance.

And that is why your generation sucks balls. We hate you and want you to hurry up and die. The younger generations seem to have a little heart. And yes, I run a company, and yes, we have a heart.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[chihowa]

Each country or area has a different supply vs. demand curve.

But this isn't true. The supply is global, not local to each country. They're trying to take advantage of a "global economy" on their supply side, but the segmented "local economies" on the demand side.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[apoc.famine]

Where do you live? I just recently gave up on deli-sliced meat when everything topped $8/lb here in the NE US. It's far cheaper for me to buy regular cuts of meat and cook them myself, than to buy deli stuff.

Of course, I agree with the rest of your post.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[nbates]

But... you don't understand...

If it is against the free market rules, then it is evil, and we must find an oversimplified reason to dismiss it.

So instead of saying "poor people in rich countries should get simmilar treatment" we say "let those who can't pay die, maybe that will teach them not to be poor"

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Nick Ives]

Right, so my mother is somehow to blame for having narcolepsy and needing roughly £100/mo drugs to stay awake during the day (hooray for Modafinil!)? I work for a private firm doing work for the DWP Disability and Carers Service so even in my day job I'm aware that there are a lot of disabled people out there who's lives are made better because of drugs.

The fact is that drugs exist; once the formula is known and they've been tested they can be manufactured cheaply. Whilst it's important to make sure that new drugs are funded it's just as important to get drugs to the people who need them now. It's criminal to restrict access to a few milligrams of some chemical that could change a persons life simply over worry about how the next generation of research will be funded.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Deagol]

I think he has it right. When I was comfortably "middle class" making $52k/year, I was comfortably paying $600/month for a truck payment. This was with a wife and two kids, mind you. I could have absorbed $500/month for medicine, but if I couldn't, I could have ditched the truck for a beater paid in cash and been able to pay for the medicine. The typical "middle class" 9-to-5 working lifestyle -- if they're not over-extended -- includes many extraneous perks that, when shaved from the budget, could easily approach $500/month. This includes things like cell phone(s), cable/satellite, internet, that morning stop at Starbuck's, and that daily lunch with the guys. Hell, just changing your diet from the pre-fab processed shit that most people buy to basic staples, spices, and whole foods and actually cooking food yourself can slash the typical family's food budget (which is substantial) in half overnight.

$500/month for life-saving medicine is an indicator, in my opinion, of the messed up state of affairs in our money-centric society. The mode of delivery, be it private or socialized medicine, doesn't matter -- such goods and services just shouldn't be priced that high. However, that anyone in the "middle class" is bitching about an extra $500/month is also pretty messed up.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[geminidomino]

However, that anyone in the "middle class" is bitching about an extra $500/month is also pretty messed up.

12.5% of pre-tax income (using your own numbers) is "nothing to bitch about?"

Gods forbid a second person in the family gets sick.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

You are forgetting the control aspect. If we socialize medicine, people won't be nearly as afraid of losing their jobs, and might not put up with as much crap. Deep in their hearts, every rich person knows this. Socialized medicine would erode their control. It's not even about money, per se. It's about being able to lord it over others, and them not being able to do anything about it. It's not a planned conspiracy, it's a dark little secret every rich person acts on without even acknowledging that is what they are doing.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Hatta]

This medication is patent encumbered, and therefore has been unavailable in generic form since its debut nearly 20 years ago

If this drug really came out 20 years ago, it should be out of patent by now:

In the US, drug patents give twenty years of protection, but they are applied for before clinical trials begin, so the effective life of a drug patent tends to be between seven and twelve years.
Wikipedia

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most poor off in the USA don't have enough food to eat. In what other godforsaken shithole is someone starving considered "rich".

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[crashandburn66]

Oh really? Last I checked, not very many people here pay the full price for medicine with their own cash. We have health insurance, medicare, medicaid, etc. to make sure that when people need medicine to avoid dying or getting sick, they can get it. That's the difference. In "some shithole country" the normal people don't have that sort of assistance. If they can't afford medicine, nobody's gonna come running to get it for them. They're basically screwed. That's just the way it works. If your idea of equality involves poor people dying because they can't afford medicine and nobody helps them pay for it, then maybe inequality ain't so bad.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Hatta]

This is the best kind of troll. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. 10/10

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

Nope. Research that was paid for by public funding is being sold for a profit. They are stealing the sweat off our brows. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Either the research done at the schools was funded by them, and they're "entitled" to it,

If the school is entirely privately funded, this may be true. But if they receive even a little public funding for other things, the money they spent on research is money they would have spent on those other things.

or the research was done by the schools for some other reason, and they either licensed it (go argue with the licensor about the fees if they weren't enough) or the research was put in the public domain,

Huh? The reason the schools did the research is irrelevant. Did they receive public funding or not? Are you claiming that ALL research done by organizations that receive public funding goes into the public domain? That's just untrue.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. Why don't you ask the people of Darfur who not only don't have enough to eat, but they spend their time hoping they aren't killed. Someone who only has to worry about food (which, by the way, food can be found in America thanks to churches, shelters, volunteers, etc) is very much rich.

Or have you heard about the Congo? Families are constantly worrying about roving groups/gangs who want to rape and pillage (and typically do).

There are people who have a lot of problems in America - there is no doubt about that. But it is nothing compared to what individuals may go through in other countries. As Americans, we are very, very lucky whether we realize it or not.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Hal_Porter]

I think a first order derivative would be more useful right now, eg "d shitholiness / d time is large and positive, repeat large and positive!"

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[jellomizer]

Demand is local to each country though. If X cost 1 USD and the Price Parity Ratio is different that means the demand for the product has changed. The demand for Drug X is much lower when it costs significantly more.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Raw food prices are about the same everywhere in poor and rich nations. What happens is the guy in the poor nation eats meat that would be thrown away back home, and survives on THAT for a week for 5 bucks. You have to understand all poor nations export their "good and decent" surplus food on the international market, then the crap stuff gets sold on the local market.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. A rich person in a foreign country can do quite well. But yeah, a poor American vs a poor in Afcukedistan, there is simply no comparison. But riches has no bound, some rich overseas make Bill Gates look like a pauper, really. Thats because they hire people for 10 cents an hour to do everything including pluck their pubes one by one, and if thats still too expensive, they hire children.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[LunaticTippy]

Demand is only local with artificial restraints on trade. If the pharma company can make it wherever is cheapest why can't consumers buy it wherever is cheapest?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs. (There is a small, flat charge per prescription)

Are you sure that you don't pay the full cost? Did you ever notice that your taxes are higher than ours? All you've really done is divert part of your payment through a government bureaucracy.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[moosesocks]

1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...

No profits are being sacrificed. You sell your product at the price that people are willing/able to pay for it. This is nothing more than a sane business practice.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the specifics of this, but selling the drugs at a lower price to some countries is not necessarily subsidizing. The lower price will most likely still be significantly greater than the production cost, so they'll still be making a profit.

Of course, if they charged *everyone* the low price, they wouldn't recoup the development costs.

This is hardly the only case of companies selling more or less the same thing for different prices depending on who they're selling it to.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance.

And that is why your generation sucks balls. We hate you and want you to hurry up and die. The younger generations seem to have a little heart. And yes, I run a company, and yes, we have a heart.

You run a private company, not a public corporation, yes? Companies owned by individuals/small groups have no problem in the "heart" department.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[cirby]

1. Richer countries like the US and UK are subsidizing this drug program. You don't honestly think GSK is going to give up its profits now do you...

They've been doing this sort of thing for decades, and YES, they've been giving up profits.

2. They are putting some of their patents in a "patent pool", whatever that means, instead of doing the real "right thing" and releasing those patents to the public domain. Torpedo patents anyone...

It keeps fly-by-night Third World companies from producing crappy, ineffective versions of the real products. It also reduces (by a large amount) the chance that they'll be sued by some idiot because one of those nobody companies comes out with a harmful version of the drug that ends up killing or injuring a lot of people (yes, that happens, and when it does, there will be people just like you complaining because those Big Pharma folks should have done something).

3. This isn't an attempt to "do good" more than it is an attempt to stop countries from ignoring their patents and developing generics on their own. A little profit is better than no profit in their eyes. Besides, as 1 above suggests, they will make it up off the richer countries.

This whole paragraph is just plain old uninformed bashing of a whole industry, with no proof. I've worked with pretty much all of the big pharmaceutical companies, and they've been doing good of this sort for a long time, selling good medicines to people all over the world - and paying for it with profits made from the rich countries. The money has to come from somewhere. IF they give all of their profits away, NOBODY CAN AFFORD TO DO THE RESEARCH.

This is a multi-billion dollar a year industry we are talking about here. ...creating drugs which literally cost billions of dollars to create. For every drug that makes it to market, there are THOUSANDS of compounds that have to be investigated. Out of those thousands, there are hundreds that take more research to find out if they have obvious harmful side effects. Of those hundreds, there are dozens that may work. When you get down to five or six candidates, you have to spend millions upon millions of dollars to see if they're effective and safe. Then you have to figure out if you can make enough of the stuff, in pure enough form, to be cost-effective. Then (because the patent term has mostly run out while you were doing all of this) you have to sell the new drugs for a lot of money, for a very few years, and hope that it pays for itself before some OTHER company comes out with something similar for half the price, and before the patent runs out.

They have no conscience and no morals. Profit is their only motivator. No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance. This is doubly so with the drug industry.

You really don't know anything about these guys, except what you see in bad Hollywood productions.

I've had the privilege to sit in rooms with hundreds of pharmaceutical employees, from the lowest salesmen to the head of the company, watching dozens of people crying their eyes out because they came out with a new, better treatment for AIDS that would save lives. No, they weren't crying because they were going to make money (the product wasn't going to be that profitable), they were celebrating because they DO GOOD THINGS.

I've listened to CEOs talk, off-the-record, with their top people, happily bragging about a new program to get free drugs to poor people (no, not that "first taste" BS, but long-term free treatment for many hundreds or thousands of people, with no set end date - it's been going on for a long time, too. The under-the-table "free samples for life" thing has been around for years, they just made it official and expanded it).

If you want to see someone with no conscience and no morals, look in a mirror. It takes that sort of person to trash people when you don't know anything about them or about what they actually do for a living - or why they do it.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[afidel]

I think their real fear is that after the third world countries seize their patents that a large amount of those generics will find their way into the developed world much as the socialized drugs from Canada find their way into the US today. The fact that they can spin this for goodwill is just a bonus.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

What Americans fail to understand is that, even the most poor off and worst person in America is (many times) still doing better than some of "rich" people in other countries.

I live in America, and though I'm not poor myself, I can tell you %100 that this is just not true. Poor people in the US are no better off than poor people anywhere else. Just because one lives in a country with a "high quality of life" doesn't mean they can afford it.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[tmosley]

+1 Insightful. Until people are free to import things like drugs for their own consumption, there is no free market. Instead we have a neo-imperialist state coordinated system resembling mercantilism. It's utterly backwards. Despite the hoopla from the Bush Administration over free trade, the fact is that we have anything but.

I propose we rename GlaxoSmithKline as the East India Drug Trading Company and be done with it. It should be noted that these types of anti-competitive policies led to much of the civil unrest that culminated in the American Revolution.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Attila Dimedici]

Where I live we have a very good fire fighting service. Guess what, it isn't state run. It is volunteer. As far as I know all of the firefighters are volunteers, although some of the officers might be paid). They raise much of the money for operating expenses and equipment by community fund raisers. They do occasionally get grants from the local, state and federal government for large equipment purchases (new fire trucks, etc), but not all of the large equipment is paid for this way. Most of the U.S. is serviced by such fire departments. This is the model that provides firefighting service for most of the U.S.. So, I don't see how a state run fire fighting service is vital to a functional, stable society. All of the areas in the U.S. that I know of that have a state run fire fighting service are among the least stable, functional parts of our society.
I believe that the state took over running the fire fighting service because the society in that area was no longer functional and stable enough to maintain that as a volunteer service. However, I think it would be an interesting study to see if the reverse might be true, the society in those areas is less functional and stable because the state took over the fire fighting service (in addition to other services that provided social stability).

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are ways to import drugs to the US if you're looking for cheaper meds. Of course that has its own risks and also doesn't apply to controlled substances. Lots of people do buy and import controlled drugs though like benzos and opiates simply because customs can't catch them all.

Check the FDA guidelines here http://www.fda.gov/ora/import/pipinfo.htm if you want to see what it specifically says.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've already got the legislation in place. Look what happens to non-individuals who import from Canada to the US.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Ihmhi]

Right, because if something is illegal then that means nobody will do it, ever.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Marble68]

Score 5 for Interesting as in as interesting as a train wreck. That has to be the most short sighted,ignorant statement I've read on /. in a while. Do you *seriously* think that the rich, who you obviously consider evil, wouldn't love the fact they didn't have to provide benefits in order to be competitive in the job market? Your argument only holds water if the individuals in question have no individual freedoms.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[BarefootClown]

No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance. This is doubly so with the drug industry.

Remind me again where they get the money to do research and development?

What's that? You say the profit on sales of existing drugs funds research into future drugs? And that if companies stopped profiting from previous developments, future advances would stagnate?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Marble68]

Amen. People arguing that the drug companies don't need to recoup costs for the MILLIONS in R&D for any drug in question PLUS the MILLIONS in R&D for the NUMEROUS drugs that NEVER MAKE IT TO MARKET are simply ignorant about the state of medicine and the science of medical research.

I saw an argument about video cards, and it was an excellent one.
However, the primary difference is when it comes to chip manufacturers etc. their science is more exacting and precise. If their system fails, boo hoo; you get smoked playing half life or your machine crashes.

Despite the advances in science, medicine and mankind's understanding of how the body works are in their infancy. Secondly, as nature changes and adapts to our attempts to stifle those elements that would kill us; so the fight is constantly changing.

Then, you have a sue happy civilization forcing these companies to have to hoard cash to offset any risks from unforeseen side effects, etc.

Are people really this ignorant as to not understand any of this?

My bitches would be that when a drug's patent runs out, it should be easier for generic manufacturers; and for terminally ill patients to be able to cut through red tape for last ditch effort experimental drugs.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Linux_ho]

I'm not from the UK, there they have a comprehensive national insurance policy. Still, when I look at the USA who tax their citizens at a rate of 2.9% for medical cover that covers only the disabled and elderly (>65), and compare that to the 1.5% we pay here in Australia

I'm in the USA, and I agree with you that it's in the best interests of every citizen to have full coverage for all basic services. But keep in mind, the disabled and elderly have the highest health care costs, and Australian Medicare is not as efficient as you think.

From your Australian Medicare link: The program is now nominally funded by an income tax surcharge known as the Medicare levy, which is currently set at 1.5%.[2] An exemption applies to low income earners. In practice the levy raises only a fraction of the money required to pay for the scheme. If the levy was to fully pay for the services provided under the medicare banner then it would need to be set at about 8%.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

Individual freedoms only go so far when food, clothing, shelter, and medicine are only available to those who tithe to the rich, either directly by working for them, or indirectly by paying taxes for government services that mainly benefit the rich. After all, who steals from a beggar? The police protect property. Does a homeless man fear his property burning down? No, he has none. The law forbids both him and the rich man from sleeping under a bridge, who does that law benefit.

No, the rich would not love socialized medicine, because (as I said) it isn't about money, it is about control. If you look at Republican policies, you will find one underlying current: cheap labor. Republicans these days are all 'cheap labor conservatives.' Every single policy can be analyzed in terms of it's impact on the labor market. Republican policies have the almost universal effect of depressing the price of labor.

With socialized medicine, people would be less afraid of losing their jobs, and therefore, less under the control of the rich. That is the entire reason conservatives oppose socialized medicine. Beyond a certain level, wealth does nothing for an individual except give them the ability to limit the freedoms of others.

Your argument holds no water whatsoever. You use only insults and appeals to emotion to back it up. You present your own assumptions as facts, without evidence or supporting reasoning of any kind. Perhaps you are capable of better, and you simply let your emotions overwhelm you. You argue like a small child, but perhaps you can do better. Please, by all means, back up your hypothesis with something substantive.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[sac13]

Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs.

You don't pay the full PRICE. You pay the full cost. It just comes in other forms. Despite what people might wish, the government doesn't waive it's magic wand and make costs disappear. It can shift them around and make the price look better. The costs will always be there in one form or another.

It's kind of like energy. Costs cannot be created or destroyed. They can be converted into other forms, however.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[sac13]

You are forgetting the control aspect. If we socialize medicine, people won't be nearly as afraid of losing their jobs, and might not put up with as much crap.

No, they wouldn't. They'd just be afraid of losing their government then. So, whoever manages to get it in is guaranteed reelection, which is the whole point.

The nice thing would be to have a system where people didn't have to worry about losing anything costing them their health. I don't see socialization solving that problem.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

Citizens don't control corporations, but we do control our government. We don't have to be afraid of 'losing our government,' because no one but US can take it away from US. I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Could you try to explain it in a little more depth? And could you give an example of a system that would, in your opinion, give people a guarantee of access to health care?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MaskedSlacker]

Your argument holds no water whatsoever. You use only insults and appeals to emotion to back it up. You present your own assumptions as facts, without evidence or supporting reasoning of any kind. Perhaps you are capable of better, and you simply let your emotions overwhelm you. You argue like a small child, but perhaps you can do better. Please, by all means, back up your hypothesis with something substantive.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MaskedSlacker]

You're forgetting that price discrimination is (within a single market anyway) generally illegal. The airlines go to hilarious lengths to try and get away with it--which results in things like buying a longer-haul ticket with a layover at your actual destination sometimes being cheaper than buying a ticket to that actual destination.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[migla]

Then maybe those countries with high average wealth should distribute it better.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Deagol]

I guess is depends on how you look at it. I was paying more than 12% of my gross to various taxes each paycheck, and I tended to bitch about that. But like I said, my biggest expense was my truck, then my house, then maybe monthly bills (we had no unsecured credit payments), then food, then insurance. While seeing $500/month spent on anything unexpected stings, it's not like someone making that much money can't handle the payment, and quite easily given proper money management.

Look, I'm not saying that an extra $500/month doesn't suck, especially for something like medicine, which is essentially flushing the cash down the commode. I was merely backing up the other poster's (great grand parent post?) assertion that either the OP has no idea what "middle class" means or he can't manage his money. That's all.

I've trimmed down a lot since my peak of earning (the aforementioned $52k/yr) down to a hair over $1000/month gross income. Still married, still w/ 2 kids. I'm not saying it wouldn't totally suck ass, but even now I could rearrange the cash flow to piss away $500/month on medicine if one of my family members needed it. Sure, we'd be eating beans and rice for every meal (as opposed to maybe 2 times a week now) and Flintstones vitamins to take up the slack, but we'd pull through.

As nebulous a term as "middle class" is, anyone who is in that bracket should be able to find $500/month by a modest amount of sacrifice. If they can't, they're overextended in some way and that's nobody's fault but their own (unusual circumstances notwithstanding). This has nothing to do with the state of crookedness of Big Pharma Co and their over-priced drugs.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

I present reasoning to back up my assertions. Maybe you buy it, maybe you refute it, but at least it's there. So, your little snark misses the mark, unless perhaps you could point to examples in my posts here in this thread where I have used insults or appeals to emotion? No? Didn't think so.

It really bums me out that Slashdot used to be a place where people could engage in actual debates. Instead, we have inane, thought terminating cliches like 'pot, meet kettle' foisted off on as in lieu of real logic and reasoning.

I mean, agree with me or don't, but you couldn't have more perfectly illustrated my point. "Pot meet kettle," indeed.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say it is comprehensive... ever wanted to get dental done in Australia under Medicare? Better hope you're not in serious pain because if you can't afford to see a dentist you're going to live with it.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[geminidomino]

I think I may be seeing the issue here. You seem, from where I'm sitting, to be talking about the $500/mo as a temporary expense. There are quite a few medications in that price range that are essentially lifetime subscriptions (or at least until the patent expires).

Eating beans and rice every day for 10 years strikes me as a significant decrease in quality of life.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Thaelon]

In other news, there's going to be a huge market for buying these drugs in third world countries and selling them in the UK and the US.

Next up, expect to see laws against importing drugs (if there aren't already), and news about how dangerous even name brand drugs are from other countries are (to keep you from buy them that way since they're cheaper).

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[sac13]

Citizens don't control corporations, but we do control our government.

Really? So, I can blame you for the Iraq war? I can blame you for Guantanamo (which still isn't closed by the way)?

Citizens don't control our government. The mob (and I'm not talking about the Italian guys with the nice suits) does. The corporate lobbyists and mass media control our government. They (the government, lobbyists and media) allow us to think we control it, but don't fool yourself.

And as for corporations, we might not control them, which could be debatable, but they can't use deadly force on us legally. The government can. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but I'd gladly pick the one that can't take my property, freedom or life legally.

We don't have to be afraid of 'losing our government,' because no one but US can take it away from US. I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Could you try to explain it in a little more depth?

We use that term a little differently than other parts of the world. That's how I'm using it here. In parlimentary systems, a party is elected and then it forms the government. We elect people who are members of a party. At least, that's what we claim we do. Most people go in and check the names that have their chosen party associated with them.

So, when I say the purpose is to make people afraid of losing their government, I mean losing the government of the party in control. You've got fearmongering and propaganda on both sides in the US that feeds this. Health care is just another ball in the game they play. Giving more of it to the government (the US government already pays for ~45% of health care costs in the US) just gives the parties another tool to manipulate us with.

And could you give an example of a system that would, in your opinion, give people a guarantee of access to health care?

People have guaranteed access now. But, that's not what you're asking. You're asking for a system that guarantees complete care for anyone without concern for costs.

First, I'm not aware of any system that can guarantee anything. The only guarantee I'm aware of with life is death.

But, I digress...

The problem with the current system is that the costs are outrageous. That's why people can't afford basic care. That's why everyone needs some sort of insurance. And, that is where you find the root of the problem.

Insurance, in health care, is not insurance at all. It's a health payment plan. Real insurance is supposed to insure you against an unexpected loss. Annual check-ups, birth control pills and Viagra are not unexpected. You should pay for those out of your pocket.

Ahh, but they're too expensive you say. Why? The reason is that the insurance companies long ago made it their mission to change their product (which hardly anyone bought by the way) so that it was involved with every aspect of the system. And, so, they pushed it with companies to use as a cheap way to offer compensation for employees. As more and more people joined the program, they began expanding "coverage" until they covered everything.

The problem is, with anything that you separate the driver of the cost from the cost itself, the laws of supply and demand begin to break down. Since care is free, people start going to the doctor for splinters and stubbed toes. So, the insurance companies decided to control the costs. They hired their own doctors. The hired people to process and review claims. They started to require things to be authorized to make sure people were only doing things that they really "needed" to have done. Essentially, they implemented rationing. They also raised their premiums on the other side of the equation.

On the provider side, the doctors had to hire people who were specialists in insurance. They had to hire people to process claims. They had to make sure they complied and followed each companies processes and procedur

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[glittalogik]

Wait, was that sarcasm?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs. (There is a small, flat charge per prescription)

Well, here in the good ol' U.S.A. we have all the evils of socialized medicine and NONE of the benefits.

Take that pinko!

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

If we turned it into a government mess, we would stand a better chance of controlling the costs and cutting down the bureaucracy than we do now. I agree that the insane overhead is the real problem. But the free market has proven itself incapable of removing insane overhead. Every niche, no matter how useless to society as a whole, is exploited and defended. Sure, government protects its entrenched interests too. But this won't be an entrenched interest. So in the process of publicizing health care, we can destroy the current bureaucracy, and with a tiny bit of clever legislation, as well as ongoing citizen oversight, we can keep it from becoming an entrenched government bureaucracy.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[sac13]

If we turned it into a government mess, we would stand a better chance of controlling the costs and cutting down the bureaucracy than we do now. I agree that the insane overhead is the real problem. But the free market has proven itself incapable of removing insane overhead. Every niche, no matter how useless to society as a whole, is exploited and defended. Sure, government protects its entrenched interests too. But this won't be an entrenched interest. So in the process of publicizing health care, we can destroy the current bureaucracy, and with a tiny bit of clever legislation, as well as ongoing citizen oversight, we can keep it from becoming an entrenched government bureaucracy.

Can you name a single government program that has controlled costs and cut down on bureaucracy? It doesn't happen. And health care is certainly not an area where it will happen... at least the way the people want it. The cost reductions come only from rationing, not bureaucratic cuts. To control the costs, you'll have to wade through a bureaucratic mess just to get basic care.

Sure, they could mandate the price of things, but that just means fewer people will go into medicine. We're already experiencing shortages of nurses and some types of doctors because talented people would rather do something else that doesn't require the level of b.s. that has to be dealt with in medicine. So, then you get even more rationing and lower quality of care.

You can't exactly blame the free market for the health care mess... at least the medical side of it. Sure, "insurance" has done more than it's part to screw things up, but that was because it changed the market from a free one to a regulated one. It's just regulated by insurance rather than government. Of course, it's also not free because the government already pays nearly half of all health care costs in the US. We already have a government system. And, it hasn't improved things.

The only way to make things affordable is to destroy the bureaucracy. Government only creates bureaucracy. It never even reduces it.

I can be open to a government provided OPTION for catastrophic care insurance for those that can't afford it. I can even be open to government subsidized primary care for those needing assistance. But, if we continue to allow primary care to be managed by bureaucracy, whether private or government, rather than by patients and doctors themselves, then the costs will grow, the bureaucracy will grow and the mess will only get bigger.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Deagol]

Right. However, making $12k/annum does not place me in the "middle class" category. Still, what's more unpleasant: the beans and rice or the *lack* of the required medication? (BTW, our family has several variations on beans and rice, with sauces and spices, soups, etc. that make this hypothetical option far less bleak than it would appear.) If I was making $30k annually -- a laughable low-end of the plausible middle class income spectrum -- I could pay the $500/month and still eat a T-bone every night for dinner.

The whole premise of this sub-thread is that some dude complained about being "middle class" and not being able to handle an extra $500/month. Another dude called him on it, saying he was either *not* middle class or he couldn't handle his monthly cash flow. I opened my big mouth with a supporting opinion on the matter.

You seem to be projecting some value to the quality of life issues or morality to the costs of the drugs in questions. None of those factors are at work in this thread. Some of us are just calling b.s. when someone proclaims himself to be middle class and yet unable to allocate $500/month towards a (presumably needed) medicine. Unless I missed a post, this dude's income is unknown, so all of this is just pissing in the wind. :)

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[CodeBuster]

That's not social justice. It's social prejudice.

Drug patents are a legally sanctioned and enforced monopoly and monopolies always engage in price discrimination or charging the maximum amount that each individual consumer is able and willing to pay because that is the pricing strategy that maximizes profits. They charge the person in Africa $2 because that is all that he has or his government is willing to pay for his treatment and dead people don't pay anything ($2 is better than $0 after all) whereas the person in the United States is charged $2000 because they will find a way to pay that if it saves their life. Why do drug company monopolies exist? Because the governments of the world allow them to and enforce their exclusivity. In the absence of government interference such chicanery would not be possible.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[CodeBuster]

so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs.

That is true, but certain drugs are simply not available in the UK at any price unless you are on the completely private plan (you opted-out of NHS) which is rare. There was a case recently, cannot recall the details but you could google it, where a woman was threatned with being cutt off NHS chemo and presented with a massive bill because she had gone outside the system and purchased a certain cancer drug, which the NHS had denied, with her own money (a big no-no on NHS, no private supplementation allowed). You may not have to pay the full cost of your medically necessary drugs, provided that you can get them, but the NHS ensures that everyone is equal in death when treatments are denied. The NHS is not the panacea that people make it out to be.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[BeanThere]

... people who had the dumb luck to be born in some shithole country ...

There's nothing "lucky" about being born in a shithole country, trust me, not even if you get the odd thing cheaper. The contradiction is right in your statement. If you really think it's "lucky", just move to one of those shithole countries; then you'll see why so many people are still clambering to get out and nobody's clambering to get in.

The big drug companies lose a lot of sales to generics in third-world countries; R&D on a particular drug is a sunk cost, so I can only imagine their reasoning here might be that, provided they don't sell a drug at a loss, that a cheaper sale is better than no sale (though it possibly opens some worm cans). Kind of like Windows 'Starter Edition'.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[BeanThere]

Well, I actually do have a very good chance that I've been born with just such an ailment, and I'm working extra hard and saving money instead of buying luxuries so that I can pay for my own healthcare when it hits me - because that's just my value system, and I intend for my value system to remain intact - it is against my morals to force somebody else to spend a HUGE chunk of their hard-earned money to take care of me (care of a sick person costs a lot), that would be wrong, and I don't see how I could possibly even consider that that might be 'right' somehow, even as it may well threaten my very life; I'd sooner die in the gutter than have someone else's money stolen on my behalf, thank you.

Just because I have no control over it, doesn't mean I'm somehow entitled to being paid by others, that's a total non sequitir. "Ooh look, I'm so unlucky, so you must give me money to make things all fair". Please. Some people draw the short straw in the lottery of life. That's all there is to it.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

But let's say all the rich companies in your country have exported your jobs to those same countries that are really cheap. Not content with that, the rich companies even started bringing the cheap workers over here to your country for a few years at a time, thus pushing down wages closer to the cheap country's level. Now your wage is nearly the same as these cheaper people in countries where the average wage is $10K /year, but it costs you $50K / year to live in your country because your houses, college debts, and even medicine were priced so much higher than in that cheap country. What do you do then?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Garrett Fox]

Here in the US, we had a Constitution that restricted what our federal government was allowed to do, to a specific list of tasks. Under that law it didn't matter how wonderful our people thought national socialist medicine would be; it simply wasn't something the central government had authority to do.

We've dispensed with that limitation, but some of us still believe that it's wrong to force people to pay for services unrelated to the protection of their rights against aggression.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Garrett Fox]

The question is: should we use organized violence (law) to force companies to produce products at a loss? Or: where exactly is a drug company supposed to make the profits that it needs to stay in business and expand, if we demand that it give away free stuff to the poor and not jack up its rates for the rich countries to compensate? Or: as much as we'd like to help the world's poor, have they got a right to force us to help them, as opposed to us trying to get rich and then generously giving them stuff of our own free will?

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "younger generation" as in the "myspace-addicted, MTV-adoring, American-Idol-loving generation"? That's my generation and I think it's just as bad as any previous generation. The "younger generation" is certainly no less self-centered. Probably more so. Just compare the number/size of Vietnam protests vs. Iraq protests, popular music of both periods (classic rock vs. today's pop/rap, "give peace a chance" vs. "get rich or die tryin'"), etc.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MadMidnightBomber]

Mea culpa. We collectively pay for the drugs, but you don't need to worry about turning up to the doctor and not being able to afford the drugs you need.

Of course I know my taxes are going into the NHS, but I could have put it better.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[penguinchris]

I was going to say almost the same thing - in California it's cheaper to get a hot, juicy burger from In-N-Out (with convenient access to inexpensive fries and drinks) than it is to make yourself a sandwich with deli meat for lunch.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Maelwryth]

I'm not sure whether that should be modded insightful or not. It sounds like you have the same sort of system we have in New Zealand in that a government department (Parmac in our case.) bulk buys the drugs. We are still paying the price of our medicine. It's just that we are spreading it across the entire country via taxation and trying to pay less by making larger purcases.
It isn't a bad system though. A wee bit prone to political interference if anything. It does mean that you can only get the drugs that Pharmac buys for free (or near to). Anything else, and you get to pay for it.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[xouumalperxe]

If the school is entirely privately funded, this may be true. But if they receive even a little public funding for other things, the money they spent on research is money they would have spent on those other things.

What "money spent on research"? Like I said: if a company pays a university lab to research something, the company gets the research results, lab/university gets the cash, which in turn means that less tax money is needed to pay for the functioning of the university as a whole.

Huh? The reason the schools did the research is irrelevant. Did they receive public funding or not? Are you claiming that ALL research done by organizations that receive public funding goes into the public domain? That's just untrue.

I'm claiming that if a company is using research produced independently by a university, there are three possible ways that could happen: the research results were put in the public domain, the results were not put in the public domain and the company licensed them, or the company outright stole/appropriated the results. Since we're discussing immoral, not illegal, behaviour, I ignored the third possibility. The first implies that everybody is allowed to profit off the results, in one way or another. The second means that whatever the university thought was a fair price for the results was paid, and the company has no further debt to society for using the as they see fit. (If you think the debt wasn't fully repaid, I suggest you bring the complaint to whomever decided on the licensing scheme itself, not the licensees)

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Tellarin]

The public ones also don't have, the "heart" department has been "outsourced". :)

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Ginger Unicorn]

So you don't think it's valid to have both personal responsibility and social responsibility? If you saw a hit and run and no one else was around would you just walk past and leave them to die, thinking "Some people draw the short straw in the lottery of life. That's all there is to it"?

Do you think that attitude on the whole would make for a better society? Do you even want to be part of a society?

And do you also genuinely believe that everyone with a medical ailment is capable of finding the money to treat their ailments if they really tried?

And do you genuinely believe that taxation is theft?

While it's valid to argue where the line should be drawn between social and personal responsibility, the childishly histrionic language in which you couch your argument and the silly straw man you knock down in the last paragraph suggests that don't really have a very balanced pragmatic attitude toward living in a society, and perhaps would be better moving to the mountains to fend for yourself.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[nbates]

This isn't about producing at a loss. It has been mentioned already that drug production is not expensive most of the time. It is RD costs what makes drug price expensive, that's a fixed cost.

Selling cheaper drugs to those who can't pay doesn't hurt their business at all. They don't even have to produce the drug, but just let other labs use their patent for this purpose (for example, university labs). Poor people, that couldn't afford the medicine, won't buy it anyway so it really doesn't make a difference to drug companies.

You could ask a million questions and put a million excuses. Or you could try thinking about solutions by yourself. I was just pointing out how little good will some people has when it comes to poor people.

Also, why do you call it organized violence when it is about doing something you disagree with (selling medicine cheaper to the poor) but it is "all mighty law" when it comes to protecting your right to your intellectual property?

I think that the "right to intellectual property", is way less important than the human right to proper health care.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[sac13]

Mea culpa. We collectively pay for the drugs, but you don't need to worry about turning up to the doctor and not being able to afford the drugs you need.

Only for those that can't afford it. Those that can come out of pocket.

Medications are the number one place we need to cut the bureaucracy. I'd start with getting doctors out of the prescription business. Let's eliminate the whole idea of prescriptions. Some will argue that people would abuse medications then, though. We could put controls around medications that are prone to abuse outside of the current process. We already do that with OTC medications that can be used to synthesize methamphetamine. But, the abuse issue is a completely different discussion.

The reason I argue for removing prescriptions is because every time I go to the doctor, I see a drug salesman there pushing the latest pharmeceuticals (none of which have generic alternatives). And, the doctor always prescribes those being pushed even if there are alternatives that do have generic options. It's the centralized bureaucracy of prescriptions that drives up drug costs. The doctors get kick backs for prescribing the brand name drugs. People have to have prescriptions to get their medications. So, guess what medications people have to buy. Of course, they don't "buy" it, their insurance pays for it. More bureaucracy, more costs.

Wal-mart and most major pharmacies offer the majority of generic drugs for $5 or less for a monthly prescription. Almost anyone can afford that. But, the drug companies know that they control the process because they market to the doctors. So, they keep tweaking their products just as their patents run out so that they keep generic options off the table. They put billions into developing drugs that do little if anything to treat conditions better than older products that have generic options. Take the doctors and insurance out of the process and they don't waste their R&D money just to protect cash streams because people are going to go with the generics if the difference in results is not significantly better.

Sure, they'll still be new drugs that don't have generics yet. But, most of those will be drugs that are specifically for catastrophic conditions like cancer or AIDS, in which case REAL insurance that insures for unexpected problems would then kick in and cover it. Maintenance medications like those for blood pressure, cholesterol, acid reflux, etc do have adequate generics that people can afford out of pocket.

The pharmaceutical companies will then have to actually develop things that improve people's health rather than solve the same problems over and again just to keep their cash cow pumping. They'll have to price their products competitively because cost will be a factor in people's purchasing decisions. They'll also be able to do that more easily because they won't be pumping all the development money into products that don't improve the state of health care. They'll actually be accountable because no one is going to pay for things that don't offer enough benefit to justify the price.

The entire system can get much better. But, I believe it has to be one that eliminates as much ancillary activity that is not necessary to providing care for it to be both effective and sustainable. That means we kill the bureaucracies. Then people can both get the care and afford it.

It's fine to offer social support for those that can't manage to get it on their own. But, we can't let all the bureaucrats convince us that we need to keep the same mess, just change the way it's paid for. That seems to be all I've heard from advocates of socialized medicine. That doesn't solve the problem. It just changes it slightly.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[geminidomino]

You seem to be projecting some value to the quality of life issues or morality to the costs of the drugs in questions. None of those factors are at work in this thread. Some of us are just calling b.s. when someone proclaims himself to be middle class and yet unable to allocate $500/month towards a (presumably needed) medicine. Unless I missed a post, this dude's income is unknown, so all of this is just pissing in the wind. :)

Nah, I didn't say anything about the morality, but I admit I'm not sure how "quality of life" issues can be a non-factor when discussing economic class...

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[MaskedSlacker]

You didn't present reasoning, you presented unsubstantiated statements.

unless perhaps you could point to examples in my posts here in this thread where I have used insults

You argue like a small child, but perhaps you can do better

If that's not an ad hominem, I don't know what is. Though I'm sure you'll take that statement as an opportunity to claim that I must not know what one is, so save yourself the accumulate carpal tunnel damage.

No, the rich would not love socialized medicine, because (as I said) it isn't about money, it is about control. If you look at Republican policies, you will find one underlying current: cheap labor. Republicans these days are all 'cheap labor conservatives.' Every single policy can be analyzed in terms of it's impact on the labor market. Republican policies have the almost universal effect of depressing the price of labor.

With socialized medicine, people would be less afraid of losing their jobs, and therefore, less under the control of the rich. That is the entire reason conservatives oppose socialized medicine. Beyond a certain level, wealth does nothing for an individual except give them the ability to limit the freedoms of others.

All of this is opinion, and unsubstantiate opinion at that. Sure you CAN analyze every republican policy in terms of its effect on the labor market. I can also analyze every piece of literature with a marxist critique, doesn't make it meaningful or relevant to do so however (though in both cases it is SOMETIMES meaningful and relevant).

Your claim that it isn't about money, it's about control is conjecture. Unless you are part of the secret cadre of rich people trying to keep everyone else down. The claim that conservatives oppose socialized medicine because they would lose control is wild conspiracy fantasy. Now, I'm sure there are some people, in particular certain politicians, some health care executives, for whom that might be the case, but you have no support (at least, you didn't give any) for the claim that it is true of all. Most importantly, it's not how most of them view their own position--of course, that could just be cognitive dissonance, but self-interpretation is as important as anything else. Conservatives oppose socialized medicine because it will, in general, be more expensive (under the mathematical assumptions of neo-classical economics, grab any microecon textbook for more details, which as I state below unfortunately do not correspond well to reality). Of course, the response to that is: more expensive than what? and for whom?

Which brings me to another point: ideology is stupid. While, generally speaking, as an economics major I find the analysis in favor of market structures much more mathematically compelling, we don't actually have free market structures. Homo sapiens is poorly suited to free markets, and in general seem to act to subvert them as much as possible (the classic slashdot drum in this department would be Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, for example). Really, the failures of neo-classical economics are the same as the failures of communist economic theory--fundamentally wrong assumptions about human nature.

I could go on all day, but I have more important things to do, like go oppress some poor people.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[spun]

Yeah, I wrote that AFTER Marble68 said my post was 'interesting as a trainwreck.'

As for free markets, we are not suited to them. Not because we try to subvert them, but because we simply are not rational. You seem to have an outdated view of human nature, especially considering all of the fascinating recent research economists have been doing. As someone majoring in the field, I would think you'd be more up to date. The economic games research is fascinating, and proves that people are NOT naturally selfish. Most people are far more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than self interest. Unfortunately, sociopaths do exist. And the ranks of the rich and powerful hold far more sociopaths than the general population. Our free market system is designed to reward and encourage sociopaths, not normal, unselfish people.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[ChaosDiscord]

Each country or area has a different supply vs. demand curve.

Except we're not talking about buying goods and services inherently limited to a particular area (perishable food, bellhop service). We're talking about multinational corporations that ship products throughout the world. We're talking products that could easily be shipped around. The supply and demand curves should very similar across the world, as third parties engage in arbitrage to remove the artificial barriers.

Of course, this isn't the case, thanks to government-granted monopolies in the form of patents and government-protectionism in the form of restrictions on re-importing drugs.

Getting the right balance will maximize profits and matching pricing for the right areas is more profitable.

Yes, indeed. Taking advantage of government meddling, lobbying to maintain the advantages you've been handed, and engaging in price discrimination will certainly lead to higher profits. Other handy techniques for higher profits include realizing that sometimes it's cheaper to pay wrongful death lawsuits than to recall dangerous products and moving costs into externalities in the form of pollution.

Price discrimination sucking value out of the market as a whole, leading to a less efficient market and a lower quality of life as a whole. No matter one's views of the market, this should be repugnant. It is a case of capitalism in practice failing. The solution (more or less regulation) is debatable, but I don't think you'll find many economists suggesting that the status quo is the best option.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[ChaosDiscord]

Some people draw the short straw in the lottery of life.

A cousin of mine have an extremely rare genetic trait that means they have problems processing protein. I don't remember the exact details, or sadly the name, but the gist was that if they ate normal food, some chemical would end up accumulating in their bodies and they would die. It was first diagnosed sometime around the beginning of 20th century, and the prognosis at the time was death within a few days or weeks.

These day, someone with the trait can live a relatively normal life. They can eat normal food if they're very careful, but of course they'll miss many essential nutrients. Treatments to keep my cousin alive run something like $100,000 a year. Fortunately my cousin was born to a couple with stable jobs with good health coverage. It was still a major financial hit for them, but they made do, and my cousin recently graduated college and is now in the work force. So in my cousin's case, the system worked.

However, whenever I see an argument like yours, I think of my cousin. The genetic trait is extremely rare. Surely occasionally someone has the trait and is born into poverty. Or maybe it's a different expensive condition. Their parents lack health insurance, or the health insurance's limits won't cover the treatment.

You have said, quite clearly, "Those children should die."

A friend of mine from college had a heart valve defect. It wasn't diagnosed until he was in college and suddenly started getting worse. Fortunately he had good health insurance, and a relatively simple heart surgery fixed him right up. As he joked afterward, he was The Sixty-Five Thousand Dollar Man. Of course some people will turn 20, already be in the workforce because college wasn't a realistic option, and won't have good health insurance because the job market sucks.

You have said, quite clearly, "Those people should die."

(Sorry, no personal sob story here, but I'm confident they exist.) Some people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They work hard, they save up. But they started with a disadvantage, so they couldn't get too far. But they are saving money for the future, they are skipping luxuries. They live spartan existances. Then there is an economic slump. They lose their job. They're unable to find new work for a long time. They eat through their savings paying health insurance out of pocket. They they get a surprise genetic problem, or a serious accident. Bills pile up. They can't afford them.

You have said, quite clearly, "Those people should die."

Maybe you're cold enough to run the raw numbers and decide that we need more people dieing because of bad luck. I'm sure it makes you a popular guy at your Ayn Rand fan club. But that's one cold-hearted way of looking at the world. You might trying starting more conversations with "If you can't personally afford medical care, you should die." It would be a very efficient way of sorting out the leeches from your fellow objectivists.

Re:Dude. What about the World's rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

socialism is designed to reward and encourage sociopaths and sloths, not normal, hard working unselfish people.

There, fixed those typos for your. :D

So, instead of 4x overpriced...

[Guspaz]

Aren't drugs already like 50% in Canada? So wouldn't a more meaningful gesture be to sell drugs for 25% of the price in Canada?

Three-quarters-off a $200 prescription is still $50. Not something that people living on a dollar or two a day can afford.

Re:So, instead of 4x overpriced...

[wisty]

Well Canada is not *that* developing.

Results of N.A. Experimentation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the results are in and they have found that by drugging the drinking water they make profit (and keep the populace pacified). So lets do it in other countries too!

Mail order

[OhPlz]

Sounds great to me, when is a mail order pharmacy going to open up in one of these countries?

Re:Mail order

[johnsie]

The Nigerians are already working on it. In the next few days you should receive an email telling you how to transfer the money.

Why a patent pool for reasearch?

[mocm]

Isn't it the purpose of the patent system to make those inventions available for research in exchange for a monopoly?

Re:Why a patent pool for reasearch?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said the p-word! Get him!

(That's right, purpose)

Re:Why a patent pool for reasearch?

[Manfre]

The effect of drug patents is to prevent competition to keep their overinflated prices. When the patent is about to expire, they change the drug slightly and get a new patent for the "new" derivative drug. They keep the name recognition for the drug, which maintains their sales. The effectiveness of the new version of the drug is usually not any better.

Re:Why a patent pool for reasearch?

[geminidomino]

I remember an episode of House where he blasted the new Chairman's company for adding an antacid to a heart medication to renew the patent.

A few years later, GlaxoSmithKline did the exact same thing. I remember waiting with bated breath for the patent to expire in 06 (I've suffered migraines for most of my life) until their lawsuit to extend it. Then they settled another lawsuit, and a generic came out in December.

In the meantime, they added Naproxen (Available OTC as "Aleve" in the states) to the formula, swapped the syllables in the name, and patented "Treximet" which, unsurprisingly, goes for about $23/dose.

And the ultimate irony... Working at a start-up, I have no employer-supplied insurance, and when I went to get my own (insanely expensive), I was refused because my migraines were a pre-existing condition!

Note the double standard

[east coast]

It's funny how if people complain about problems with the latest ATI video card being 600 dollars we hear the peanut gallery mock about early adopters but when people complain about the same thing involving drugs we hear that it's nothing but greed on the manufacturers part.

Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on. Let's be at least a little sympathetic to the plight of manufacturers trying to gain back their costs involved in bringing you the latest cures.

Re:Note the double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Medicine isn't some impulse buy of a newfangled gadget. People live and die by their ability to acquire it.

Re:Note the double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

That is utter nonsense. A large number of drugs created now days are simply older drugs that are slightly changed near the end of their patent life so the drug companies can basically get a new patent on an old drug.

I think a good example of this is Nexium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esomeprazole#Controversy

Another good example is the antidepressant Lexapro which is just the active isomer of Celexa.

Yes, some drugs do cost an absolutely massive amount of money to develop but most drug companies are heading towards the cheaper option of extending their patents rather then creating anything new that could benefit society.

Re:Note the double standard

[D-Cypell]

Yes, this post is incredibly insightful! Especially to myself and others like me who are currently suffering from terminal cases of 'Low frame rate'

FFS!

Re:Note the double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that better fits their profile. And it explains a lot about how poor Lexapro worked for my sister who'd had no luck with Celexa

Re:Note the double standard

[jellie]

Yes, R&D costs are very high. But a significant portion of the research is sponsored by governments, not necessarily by drug manufacturers. Plus, it's hard to be sympathetic when drug manufacturers spend more money on marketing than on R&D. They also have one of the largest profit margins.

It's a little unfair to be comparing the costs of drugs and of graphics cards. One is possibly a matter of life and death. And, in an economy in which every major industry is suffering, healthcare costs continue to rise.

Re:Note the double standard

[db32]

Yeah! This is only possible because Starbucks has been lowering its coffee prices. The 40-60% they spend on marketing has dropped significantly since the truckloads of crap they buy docs has gotten cheaper in the failing economy. I will be a little sympathetic when their research costs more than the bribery they engage in. I will be a little sympathetic when they quit "modifying" drugs to get an extra 2% effectiveness on some minimal behavior of a drug to get a new patent for it so they can charge exhorbant prices over the previous version that can now be made in generic form for pennies. I will be a little sympathetic when they quit buying political figures to push for mandatory vaccinations of school girls at $360 a pop when even one of they key researches of the vaccine says it is not meant for girls that young and could actually be harmful.

I mean seriously...let's all feel sorry for the serial killer that has to dig yet another hole...digging holes is hard work after all. Right now these companies are facing big problems in these countries because those governments are invalidating their patents right now. These companies want so much money that the peopel cannot afford that the people's governments have said "Fuck off, we will make our own generics". I suspect this "generous" price drop has more to do with putting political/economic pressure on these countries to enforce patents than it does some generous streak.

Re:Note the double standard

[Zerth]

I'm very sympathetic to their R&D costs, those that aren't already paid for by the government. Even more for the costs of safety trials, those they don't fake.

But since they could easily halve their drug costs by eliminating their "doctor schmoozing" division and their "Ads for hypochondriacs" division, which together cost more than their actual drug producing departments, I don't have much sympathy for the companies as a whole.

Re:Note the double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comparison is inapt. To show a double standard you have to show that all is otherwise equal. There are many differences between "the latest ATI video card" and a prescription drug. Generally, the first is a luxury and the second a necessity.

The reality is that the prices are based on geography with overlap in ability-to-pay being ignored. That is, the poorest Americans cannot afford these drugs as well as the richest of other countries. Yet the rich in those countries pay the lower price while those poorer Americans are subsidizing the R&D costs.

Of course, Americans are doing more than subsidizing the R&D costs. We're paying more for drugs that have already turned profit.

We can't blame the drug companies. They are just seeking to maximize profits. They are setting the price for each market based on supply and demand. But don't pretend like they're not!

Re:Note the double standard

[TheGratefulNet]

parent is NOT insightful. parent is a moran.

Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on

no, drugs cost a ton TO MARKET AND ADVERTISE. much of the R/D is with public money (its true).

go research how much is wasted in marketing and 'selling to doctors' via gifts and such. a sizeable amount of their budget is spent on useless non-technical things meant ONLY to enhance sales of their legal-crack. also they spend millions to fight 'illegal drugs' since it is seen as 'competition' for the legal congress-approved drugs.

if there is ever a revolution (pitchforks to the streets and such) the drug companies are first on my list for lynchings.

drug companies have the moral responsiblity to NOT withold life saving drugs to people in need. they are cold hearted bastards and there should be a place in hell for such people.

Re:Note the double standard

[torrija]

video cards don't save human lives.

Re:Note the double standard

[Yvanhoe]

Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on. Let's be at least a little sympathetic to the plight of manufacturers trying to gain back their costs involved in bringing you the latest cures.

If a manufacturer tries to get just its R&D costs back, it looks like the drug is expensive.
If a manufacturer tries to get its R&D costs back and tries to make indecent profits, it looks like the drug is expensive.

How are we supposed to know which case is which ?

Re:Note the double standard

[wisty]

Now that you mention it ... A lot of drugs these days are new drugs that aren't as effective (or have uglier side effects) as good ol' aspirin and penicillian. Except the patents are expired on the old drugs, so they don't market them any more.

Patent status can be more important than effectiveness. Heck, they only stopped marketing that antibiotic that made children hemorrhage to death when the patent expired (http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers)

Heart attack drugs that give you strokes? Diabetes drugs that make you fat (which is just *marvelous* for your long-term risks)? Pain killers that are more addictive than morphine? Oh, where can I sign up!

OK, some of it is good, but drug companies are marketing companies first, and research companies second. Look at their budgets.

Re:Note the double standard

[plasmacutter]

It's funny how if people complain about problems with the latest ATI video card being 600 dollars we hear the peanut gallery mock about early adopters but when people complain about the same thing involving drugs we hear that it's nothing but greed on the manufacturers part.

You don't suffer in horrible agony, become debilitated and lose your job, family, or sanity, or die when you don't get a video card.

Additionally, most R&D today is done in federally funded universities.

Funny how the anti-socialized medicine crowd are all over it when it comes to helping main street but its perfectly fine to socialize the R&D for these companies, then hand them the patents.

Re:Note the double standard

[drinkypoo]

I will be a little sympathetic when they quit "modifying" drugs to get an extra 2% effectiveness on some minimal behavior of a drug to get a new patent for it so they can charge exhorbant prices over the previous version that can now be made in generic form for pennies

it's actually much worse than that. the FDA does NOT have a standard that says that a new drug has to even be as effective as the drug it replaces. And if the drug is substantially similar to the drug it is replacing, it does not even have to be subjected to a trial. Big Pharma continually replaces drugs with less effective drugs with unknown side effects, then makes claims that this is the best new thing even though those claims are completely unsubstantiated, in order to discredit the old drug which has gone generic and may actually be more effective than the new drug - nobody actually knows until the drug hits the market and either is more or less effective, starts killing people, whatever... because no tests whatsoever have actually been done.

When you add to this the drug reps and doctors' collaboration on discrediting the old drugs and prescribing you the new drugs, which results in both of them getting cash bonuses, you can see that the system is not set up to help people, but just to make money at any human cost.

Even social services are used as a means to push the agendas of Big Pharma. For example, the California state health plan "Medi-Cal" (and its relative CMSP) will not cover many older, effective drugs any more. Why not? They're readily available in generic form. Medi-Cal will also only pay for you to have silver fillings, regardless of cost, even though they are backed with Mercury and that mercury is known to leech out of your teeth throughout the course of your life. In fact, hot beverages are known to cause the release of mercury vapors. Time for my morning coffee on top of my eleven silver fillings!

Re:Note the double standard

[EvilBenFranklin]

I concur. I'll also be more sympathetic to the pharmaceutical industry when they stop leaning on doctors to prescribe one medication over another via bribes or other chicanery, typically a more expensive one. I have actually switched MD's over this in the past.

I'll be more sympathetic to the Rx industry when they cease covering up their mistakes and take responsibility for the lives they have potentially ruined. Case in point: There is some preliminary indication that Avandiamet, a medication I am on, has been found to cause heart problems in some patients. Curiously, when I've been getting stressed out lately, my chest starts hurting. Funny, that. There are other cases out there, but little talk of reparation or even apology from the Rx companies unless someone starts priming the Giant Lawyer Faucet in the Sky. Admittedly, I will also be a little more sympathetic when my accursed employer realizes that you can't raise workers' prescription costs by 50-125% without giving them a salary increase to compensate. Well, you can, but you wind up with either very sick workers, or very broke workers.

Re:Note the double standard

[geminidomino]

Double standard? Who modded this joker insightful?

You don't get a massive video card, you can't play $WIZZ_BANG_COOKIECUTTER_FPS_9.

You don't get your medication, the consequences can include any/all of intense suffering, ruining one's life, and fucking DEATH.

It's not a double standard when you're comparing apples to crowbars.

Re:Note the double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that the beginning of all drug research is by the National Institute of Health or universities funded by NIH.
The drug companies were always privy to this information, however (I think it was in the 1980's) they no longer reinvest profits derived from drugs discovered or refined by NIH-funded research.
They have created so many blessings to those of us with chronic illnesses, and I believe that most of the employees are not inherently evil, though they are directed by board of directors/CEO/shareholders to turn a profit. Which in turn keeps them in business making these kinds of things. As it says a few posts up, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? Or in this case, the NIH/taxpayer should be entitled to a percentage of the profits of things they helped create.

Re:Note the double standard

[nbates]

Maybe because nobody cares if a teenager's rich daddy gets screwed.

But when it comes to sick (and poor) people, we tend to be more concerned. And then we start asking ourselves "dangerous" questions like, is person A's right to profit more important than person B's right to live? Or... Is this the best way of developing new drugs?

So no, I don't think its funny... I think it's obvious.

Re:Note the double standard

[east coast]

Sorry that you completely missed the point.

Re:Note the double standard

[geminidomino]

I'm sorry. It looked like the point was an apologetic for the poor, long-suffering drug companies trying to scrape by on only 30% profit margins...

Re:Note the double standard

[Watson Ladd]

Dental amalgam is very safe. The mercury exposure is much less then that from other environmental sources. Your dentist got the biggest dose when he mixed it.

Re:Note the double standard

[ColdWetDog]

Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on

And they cost even a shitload more to advertise.

Color me heartless and cruel, but I'm not shedding any tears over the plight of big Pharma. For all of you who don't want to RTFA, I will quote the very last paragraph:

From this new estimate, it appears that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D. These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim. While the amount spent on promotion is not in itself a confirmation of Kefauver's depiction of the pharmaceutical industry, it confirms the public image of a marketing-driven industry and provides an important argument to petition in favor of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction of more research and less promotion.

Re:Note the double standard

[ColdWetDog]

A lot of drugs these days are new drugs that aren't as effective (or have uglier side effects) as good ol' aspirin and penicillian

OK, we will set up an experiment. I get to go a real hospital. You sit at home with your bottle of aspirin and penicillin.

We both get heart attacks.

You guzzle your aspirin and penicillin. Oops, you screwed up. You took too many aspirin (only need one in this case). The antibiotic isn't doing you much good here. I get Tenectaplase and the aspirin. My chance of surviving a significant infarct is about 50% better. I win.

Get with the program here, we have an enormous quantity and quality of some really good drugs. The big issue is how we pay for their use and further research. And yes, we're doing it wrong.

But if you want to go back to chewing on willow bark, go right ahead.

Re:Note the double standard

[ColdWetDog]

Even social services are used as a means to push the agendas of Big Pharma. For example, the California state health plan "Medi-Cal" (and its relative CMSP) will not cover many older, effective drugs any more.

[citation needed]. I am curious. While I agree with the majority of your post (Big Pharma is clearly the poster child for bad corporate behavior), I've never seen a Medicaid program that disallowed generics.

Now, I've seen some really, really stupid rules run out by various state Medicaid programs, just not that particular really, really stupid rule.

So, if you've got a citation, I can put it in my big List of Really Really Stupid Medicaid and Medicare Rules (1207 GB and growing daily).

Re:Note the double standard

[ColdWetDog]

You don't suffer in horrible agony, become debilitated and lose your job, family, or sanity, or die when you don't get a video card.

I've seen some posts in gamer's forums that don't jibe with that statement.

Re:Note the double standard

[HungWeiLo]

25%-30% of their costs are in marketing. I know quite a group of young pharmacists and doctors who just finished school not too long ago. They never have to pay for food. Every weekend is some drug company comping a steak/lobster/fois gras dinner at the most extravagant restaurant in town (over $150-$200/person easily with wine). I know 2 recruiters of pharmacists who retired at the age of 32 with yachts and mansions, and now makes even more money being a recruiter of recruiters.

I think they can afford to trim a little fat here and there and still make a very healthy profit.

Re:Note the double standard

[drinkypoo]

So, if you've got a citation, I can put it in my big List of Really Really Stupid Medicaid and Medicare Rules (1207 GB and growing daily).

If I find myself back in the clutches of the Yuba-Sutter health system for poor fuckers again, I will check it out. What happened specifically was that a doctor (or maybe a dentist? I forget) had prescribed me an inexpensive and effective medication, and Medi-cal had decided to eschew it - and the suggested replacement, while available as a generic, was nonetheless more expensive.

Re:Note the double standard

[mesterha]

Dental amalgam is very safe. The mercury exposure is much less then that from other environmental sources. Your dentist got the biggest dose when he mixed it.

Mercury is extremely toxic so why increase your exposure if it's unnecessary. In addition, you may eventually need to have that cavity reworked and then your exposure risk to mercury is much higher with a drill shooting bits around your mouth.

Re:Note the double standard

[Buelldozer]

Nice try but R&D isn't the drug companies biggest expense. ADVERTISING is.

What does that tell you about their priorities?

Re:Note the double standard

[east coast]

Again, sorry you missed the entire point. Wildly actually, but as I can tell so did most slashdotters.

Re:Note the double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most R is done in federally funded universities. Not much development goes on there. The clinical trials to actually get the drugs into the market (the development part) is done by the pharmas. Guess where all the cost is and how much would actually get done if we had to rely on universities for development?

Re:Note the double standard

[ColdWetDog]

Hmm. That's pretty bizarre unless it's a narcotic. Medicaid in Alaska and Colorado (the two states I hold licenses in) have contracted to some brain dead third party administrator that feels they have to micromanage opiate scripts. I can't get them to tell me what (if any) logic they think they're using to insist on replacing percocet (oxycodone) for vicodan (hydrocodone). They're both dirt cheap. They have about equal street value.

I suppose I should just quit trying to figure it all out. As soon as I make some sense out it, they'll change it.

Thanks for the reply....

Re:Note the double standard

[drinkypoo]

All I know for sure is that vicodan doesn't work on me at all. I can take four big ones, wash them down with two beers, and if I drink the beers fast enough, I might feel THAT but the vicodan might as well be fiber for all the effect it has on my system. (Actually, if only it were fiber... It DOES have that effect.) :( I've actually had doctors refuse to prescribe me anything else for pain when I tell them that, like I'm some kind of junkie liar. Fuckheads.

Re:Note the double standard

[geminidomino]

Then please, make it again, using small words for all of us slashdotters.

Re:Note the double standard

[WeeBit]

"Additionally, most R&D today is done in federally funded universities."

Just amazing! Are we talking about the same drug companies that said it takes millions to think up, test, and produce these new drugs, thus the expense?

Simply amazing!

Oh wait! I got it wrong sorry my bad. What I meant to say was:

It takes millions to think up those commercials, produce, and test. They keep the ones that work. That is why we keep seeing all of those "same" commercials. (those little blue pills) If you know what I mean.

obvious why ...

[tyroneking]

from the article: "although they worry that it may undermine the generics industry which currently supplies the cheapest drugs in poor countries"

Re:obvious why ...

[Assoupis]

That is the only reason why they do it: generic medecine spread through africa and south america, and they want to get their market back. This operation is a desperate attempt to make more profit, as they are a corporation, which mean they want to make the most for the shareholders.

Real compassion would be to drop the patents on aids medecine to help africa, just as the WHO propose (http://www.aegis.com/NEWS/AFP/2001/AF0103B8.html).

Re:obvious why ...

[tyroneking]

Yeah, so right.

Corporations have a lot of legal rights but very little responsibility.

What a mess.

News just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Giant spider promises free parking for flies !

Hold the plaudits, self-interest is driving this

[Bearhouse]

FTA: "Campaigners privately say the move is remarkable, although they worry that it may undermine the generics industry which currently supplies the cheapest drugs in poor countries."

Exactly. Big pharma is in big trouble - blockbuster drugs going off patent, no new ones coming online, Govs. getting more aggressive in fixing prices. So, this is a smart move. While they still can, they can use the one advantage they still have - their size - to buy/crush the small 'generics' producers out.

Still, whatever the underlying motivation, it's encouraging to see big pharma at last getting more involved with the poorer nations of the world, which have been scandalously ignored.

They actually don't have any option

[agoliveira]

Of course they are not doing it from the kindness of their hearts. It's a matter of damage control. A country (any country) can break the patents and start producing any drug in case of need if a commercial arrangement can't be reached with the patent holder so, if they don't provide cheaper drugs, they will lose the whole deal.

Re:They actually don't have any option

[Richard_at_work]

How, exactly, are these governments going to get hold of the production process for these drugs they want to produce? Its not as simple as saying 'right, lets do it!'...

Re:They actually don't have any option

[agoliveira]

In BRIC countries at least they do have the facilities and technology as they do have their own local drug production.
BTW, I wonder why I was modded flamebait, I really think like that and that was not my intention at all :/

Re:They actually don't have any option

[Watson Ladd]

There is a branch of chemistry devoted to "this is what it looks like, now let's make it." Also, if the factory is in your country because of outsourcing you just send the Marines.

TOTAL BS

[WindBourne]

The reason it is so high in places like China and India is because they have their money FIXED against ours and designed to pull the jobs away from the west. That causes high import prices. NOW, by lowering the price ARTIFICIALLY, and most likely moving the manufacturing lines to these countries, they kill their own future as well as those of us who did the RD in the first place. The fact that companies would do this is abhorrent. Now, we need to be allowed to re-import these drugs BACK to the west at the MUCH LOWER costs and kill these companies profits.

Re:TOTAL BS

[need4mospd]

Now, we need to be allowed to re-import these drugs BACK to the west at the MUCH LOWER costs and kill these companies profits.

In this case, NOT allowing re-imports might be better from a world view point. Allowing re-import of the drugs would just cause the pharma companies to raise prices in the poorer countries to bring their profits back. At which point the poorer countries would no longer have cheap drugs.

Re:TOTAL BS

[QuantumRiff]

This is really no different than Region Coding DVD players. You can maximize profits by selling in each region what the market will bear. However, you have to find ways to ensure that people can't purchase that $2 new movie, and play it in their American player.

Re:TOTAL BS

[Magnus Pym]

Not that I am a fan of outsourcing, but India's Rupee is not fixed, its value changes all the time against the dollar. The Chinese Yuan is, however, fixed.

Magnus

Re:TOTAL BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with the re-import. Your politicians already outlawed that when your people tried to get a break on the cost of medicine by importing from Canada.

This is probably in response to the

[Big Hairy Ian]

fact that they are losing tones of sales because of cheap counterfeit drugs coming largely from china http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7865569.stm most of which are happily finding their way into the medical centers of the west.

The Plan

[BTWR]

Step 1. Go to so-called "poor country."
Step 2. Buy 10,000 units of drug X at 25% of its cost in the US/Canada/Europe.
Step 3. Sell drug X in US/Canada/Europe at 50% of its normal Drug X cost (i.e. at twice the price you paid), advertising your pharmacy as having the best prices in the country.
Step 4. (Just do step 3 a lot)
Step 5. Profit!

Re:The Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The missing ???? Step is figuring out how to avoid customs officials on your way back into the country.

Re:The Plan

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

"The Plan" won't work in the USA. Here's why.
1) When you buy drugs outside of the USA, the FDA flips out and says that the drugs weren't subjected to "rigorous testing" or some such blather and (they do have a point here) without such testing, you have no way to know if you are really getting the drug you think you bought or a weakened version or a placebo. In a worst case scenario, you die from tainted medicine (remember China and the "milk"?)
2) Federal law limits the amount of drugs that can legally be brought in, so doing whatever is necessary to try to import them legally brings you back to #1. Rinse and repeat.

Re:The Plan

[Dachannien]

What, you think pharma spammers are actually selling their wares legally?

Re:The Plan

[AndyboyH]

How about:
Step 1. Go to so-called "poor country."
Step 2. Buy 10,000 units of drug X at 25% of its cost in the US/Canada/Europe.
Step 3. Give away 5,000 units of drug X to the people that need them, for free.
Step 4. Sell 5,000 units of drug X in US/Canada/Europe at 50% of its normal Drug X cost (i.e. at twice the price you paid)
Step 5. ???
Step 6. No profit, just karma!

Re:The Plan

[plasticsquirrel]

That's a problem in the U.S. because the FDA won't allow it -- it's illegal here. If it were possible (and the federal government weren't in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry), then this would be happening now. People do cross over into Canada and Mexico now to buy cheaper medication, but they can't resell it.

Re:The Plan

[zippthorne]

Here, I've simplified it for you:

steps [1-5]: arbitrage.

Re:The Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol if it were only that easy!! Nobody in a poor country will stand by and watch you make money off them. They all get jealous...they will tax you, steal from you, take you out, copy you, scam you. You need to find an insider to bribe to make any money in a "poor" country. Those costs make it not worth the risk of getting sued back home because your medicines are poor quality.

Re:The Plan

[LanMan04]

Welcome to the exciting world of arbitrage!

Re:The Plan

[RealGrouchy]

I go to a pharmacy in Canada to fill my prescriptions, and I end up paying probably half what the drugs cost in the US. It's even covered by my insurance!

Of course, it helps that I live here.

- RG>

Public research

[Tony]

Let's not forget that many drugs are developed based on research funded by our national college systems. That is: developed based on research performed with our own money.

Most of their money is spent advertising, rather than doing R and D; and what money *is* spent on R&D is all about penile erectile dysfunction, or hayfever.

Re:Public research

[zippthorne]

Uh.. if you're talking about the pfizer drug advertized by Bob Dole, almost no R&D was spent developing it. They were looking for heart medication. Would you expect them to squander the obvious opportunity to garner billions in cash just to satisfy your prudish sensibility?

Further, considering its popularity, one can only conclude that it solves a problem a lot of people had, improving their quality of life dramatically. Isn't that the whole goal of medicine and economics?

Re:Public research

[east coast]

Actually, 70% of all R&D costs are spent on clinical trials. This has to happen for every single drug regardless if it is simply slightly different than a precursor. Clinical trials can not be paid for with public funding! (http://www.ifpma.org/issues/index.php?id=421)

I think it's time you revise your rant.

Re:Public research

[east coast]

Would you expect them to squander the obvious opportunity to garner billions in cash just to satisfy your prudish sensibility?

Sadly, this is exactly what these naysayers demand. They keep the joke rolling around about Viagra for years even though the truth of the drug came out before the first pill was ever even sold. Gotta love the meme mentality.

They'd rather throw the baby out with the bath water to satisfy their rantings and ravings instead of giving the industry a honest look and deciding for themselves if 20/20 or 60 Minutes didn't go out of it's way to drum up some sensational headline. This is much like the economic crisis of today. Trillions of dollars have been lost but the average guy on the street is still screaming "they spent 5 million on a corporate retreat!?!?!" Granted, it's a high figure and it is wasteful spending but the media has us so focused on the 2-3% spent on retreats, bonuses and CEO paychecks that we're not even considering what happened to the 97% that automagically disappeared.

Funny how many here caw on about Fox news but they're no better informed by what they think is legitimate news organizations.

So...

[CountBrass]

Not only do we taxpayers get to carry on subsidising the world's poor and keeping their leaders in designer shoes, now as customers of the drugs companies, we get to subsidise their medicines as well.

I give to charities, domestic and foreign, because I've decided they are deserving of my money. It is not the job of Government to do so on my behalf.

Re:So...

[corporal_clegg]

Not only do we taxpayers get to carry on subsidising the world's poor and keeping their leaders in designer shoes, now as customers of the drugs companies, we get to subsidise their medicines as well.

I give to charities, domestic and foreign, because I've decided they are deserving of my money. It is not the job of Government to do so on my behalf.

This was marked as a Troll!? *sigh* How is this any different than the higher-ranked posts above that all but drip with condemnation for the Eeeeviillllll Corporation even when the corporation is actually doing *something* to lower costs?

Ahh Leftdot, you do not disappoint.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be the evil Government's fault. It's not like you're free to choose what you purchase. Blame it on someone else and keep buying cheap Chinese goods to keep their leaders in designer shoes.

Re:So...

[jellie]

How is this situation different from Microsoft or Adobe selling their "student's" or "teacher's" versions of their crappy software? It's a private company realizing that if they don't sell at a lower price, they will have no customers (or worse for them, be undercut by generic manufacturers). Granted, the CEO is doing a whole lot more than what the CEOs of the other companies (Merck, Pfizer, etc.) are doing.

What does "Government" have to do with it? I would love to see countries invest more in efforts to irradiate or stop the transmission of polio, HIV, and other diseases. Cholera is ravaging through Zimbabwe, and at the same time, many of the people of Zimbabwe have been fleeing to South Africa. It's possible (though I'm not sure how likely) that cholera spreads even further.

Re:So...

[Daishiman]

Then start lobbying your government to purchase drugs on the behalf of your people at reduced prices like most of the countries that have socialized medicine. There's a reason why their health care is cheaper yet their benefits usually greater than that of places with wholly privatized medicine.

Re:So...

[Rycross]

Well this case its a company, not a government, deciding to force charity, but don't let that get in the way of your libertarian rage.

Soon to be the worlds largest?

[Anonymous Coward]

With this kind of initiative we are sure to see GSK become the worlds largest pharma/drug company.

the first tablet

[spectrokid]

Remember that in pharma, the first tablet you press costs a gazillion dollar, the second one 1 cent. If you are in a country where you can ten-double sales by slashing 75% of the price, it is still a smart move.

Re:the first tablet

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Of course, such an arrangement is only possible if people respect the "licence" (contract that is a prerequisite of the sale) of the pills.

That contract is going to specify that export to richer countries is not permitted.

Suppose this after-sale contract were to be ruled void (which is quite possibly the correct way for a judge to rule given current law), and import allowed, the pharma "giant" will be competing against itself, resulting in massive losses.

Those massive losses, that stem from not respecting the "licence" of the pills, will either prevent the pharma company from offering those pills, or they will kill the company.

Great initiative ! I truly hope it will last, but I fear for it's viability.

Re:the first tablet

[MaskedSlacker]

There is no reason that they will kill the company necessarily.

They will only kill the company if they were selling the marked down pills at a loss (on an average cost, not marginal cost basis). If the discounted pills were still sold above the average per pill cost, then the company still makes a profit on the pills that are re-imported to rich countries.

Re:the first tablet

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's a valid point. Let's see some data.

Let's take Pfizer. Profits are 36.9% of revenues. And that profit is about 1/4th of it's assets (for which rent is due). Pfizer pays for itself in 4 years.

Now let's say that it would be "good enough" to keep a viable company if it pays for itself in 20 years. That means profits could be lowered to about 8% of revenues.

Which would reduce the prices of pills therefore about 25% (yes, those figures are less than their sum ... that's because they're multiplications, not sums).

That 25% would, obviously be only deducted from a fraction of the cost of the pill. It would make zero difference to transporting companies, distribution companies, ... the works.

For a "normal" commodity producer profit is about 1/3rd of the final sale price. So the total amount pills would actually drop in price, if Pfizer made just marginal profit is not 25%, but rather 8%.

Do you think these people are talking about asking 8% less sale price in Africa, which would support your argument, or do you think they're selling them at half price, or even 1/10th, which could not possibly support your argument ?

So no, the company wouldn't survive re-importation of these pills. No company, except those with extreme profit margins could.

And, unfortunately, there are very, very few companies with extreme profit margins (ironically the "oil giants" have very little profit compared to revenue. That's why democrats and communists like chavez are always avoiding talking about "oil profits" in terms of percentages. They're never talking about profits in absolute numbers. Given that nearly 1/3rd of global wealth is spent on oil, obviously those amounts are huge, but so are the resources these companies need)

Re:the first tablet

[MaskedSlacker]

Do you think these people are talking about asking 8% less sale price in Africa, which would support your argument, or do you think they're selling them at half price, or even 1/10th, which could not possibly support your argument ?

I wasn't saying that it was a fact that they could sell all of their products at such low prices and still be profitable, what I was saying is that it was NOT NECESSARILY a fact that they would go under if they did. My position was one of skepticism pending proper analysis.

Your analysis was overly simplistic (spherical cow stuff, which is fine however for the sake of argument), but I think generally on the mark. The big thing you ignored (which cannot be examined easily or simplistically and would probably require access to a lot of internal Pfizer data to do meaningfully) is the potential for cost restructuring and reorganization of their business model. Drug research does not have to be done the way it is, there are other potentially cheaper ways (which make debatable trade-offs in terms of time to market, safety risks, etc.)

As for oil profits, the oil giants do not make massive profit margins, but they are slightly above average compared to the Fortune 100 (Exxon in particular was at 11%, the highest of the private oil companies). I forget the numbers (I had done an article on the subject, but lost all my data in a hard drive failure a few months back). The big thing with oil is that the majority of the world's oil isn't even available to private oil companies, it is in the hands of state-run oil companies in Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, etc. Most of the money we spend on gas does not go to any of the public oil companies, except at the refinery level (which refinery margins have been fairly steady at around $0.30 per gallon of petrol for the last ten years, and the retail margin fluctuates from -$0.05 to $0.10 per gallon, i.e. it is sometimes a loss to the pumping station).

A company acts precisely as a company should...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we pillory it?

It may well end up increasing GSK's bottom line, but it will also bring needed drugs at reduced prices to people who may not otherwise be able to acquire them.

Also in the current climate of corporate idiocy isn't it rather refreshing to see a major corporation do something very smart and provide social benefits at the same time?

No you guys are right, let's stick it to 'em!

yes men

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a yes men hoax. lets hope that its real

not that big a deal

[confused one]

While one might like to think they're purpose is wholly based on charity, it's not that simple. Look, They have to offer the drugs at a lower price in third world economies if they want to sell them there. Also, selling drugs cheap in developing countries has been shown to provide long term returns for the companies (once the economy of the developing country grows into a functional first world economy, the drug manufacturer will already have a foot-hold).

And it's easy enough to meet their price of 25% of US and UK prices statement, by setting the US and UK price high enough.

I'm not being cynical. I'm being a realist who's read some history.

Re:not that big a deal

[snspdaarf]

I agree. I just think they could lower their US prices a little if they did not advertise prescription products. Something about that whole process bothers me, and not just because the ads tend to be in the highest cost time slots. The drug companies spend huge amounts of money to tell people, "We have done all we can to get your doctor to give you this wonderful drug, now you should do it, too, and don't give up! Ofcoursetheremaybehorrificsideeffects, but look how wonderful the people in our ads feel!"

And, as a plus, nobody would ever have to hear that "Viva Viagra" song ever again.

Re:not that big a deal

[CesiumFrog]

Maybe they've clued on to the public sentiment against drug patents? Presenting themselves to be voluntarily charitable seeks to undermine our strongest argument for IP reform, while at the same time they are likely increasing profits (think DVD market segregation, except that the people who still cannot afford to buy the product in their region cannot just download it).

Re: good sales and goodwill

[macraig]

It's a close cousin to the ever-popular "going green" announcements and product releases. My current favorite for that B.S. is Johnson&Johnson, "a family [owned] company". Then there's "antibacterial" and antimicrobial products.

All of this can perhaps be filed under the heading of Deliberate Mis-Education. Big Pharma is... wait for it... LE-GEN-DARY for that, including even mis-educating general practitioners as well as consumers. Big Pharma would like the world to completely forget that virtually all of its products are DERIVATIVE of something already found in nature, and from which there was usually already a NON-PATENTABLE folk remedy that accomplishes much if not all of what their patented derivatives might do.

Ain't it amazing the vast conspiratorial evil that people can do when they assemble themselves into an upside-down tree with the biggest FUD-makers at the top and everyone else just doing what they're told no-questions-asked?

don't use normal logic all the time. get to know.

[Caue]

sigh. i'm brazilian and I know that that means. Don't use your market logics on this one. There is a market of "generic drugs" here; we basically rip off the main components of the formula, the active principle, and rename it. It's funded by the governament and sometimes 90% cheaper than imported drugs. I used to be neighbours to the owner of one of these labs that made generics; reaaaally rich guy (go figure) even so, Brazil is today a world reference in AIDS treatment and we have the best govt. coverage for it (US health system is really bellow us in this, but only this) so there you go economy in a nutshell

So in other words

[Shivetya]

you don't really have any idea how much you really pay for except what comes directly out of your pocket the day you pick it up?

Ignorance is bliss.

you are paying the full cost, you just don't what full cost really is let alone what is really being paid. In other words, if you were getting ripped off you wouldn't know it. Now, if a drug cost less than the threshold are you given it for that lower cost or at the mandated price? (as in, do you pay more for cheap drugs to make up paying less for expensive ones?)

Re:So in other words

[MadMidnightBomber]

you are paying the full cost, you just don't what full cost really is let alone what is really being paid. In other words, if you were getting ripped off you wouldn't know it.

Yep. Just like HEALTH INSURANCE?

In any system, the generally healthy (like me) are going to end up subsidising those who have more health problems.

Re:So in other words

[FallLine]

Yep. Just like HEALTH INSURANCE?

In any system, the generally healthy (like me) are going to end up subsidizing those who have more health problems.

I don't see anyone on private insurance on the United States pronouncing that their health care is "free". Between paying part of the premiums (or all of it if they leave their employer and elect COBRA), paying co-pays, and so on, few productive members of society can so ignorant as to believe that the system is somehow free or even cheap. In socialized health care systems, this burden is hidden in their tax bill and there's little awareness of the real cost. Furthermore, many people in the US do have a choice as to the quality and level of care they want (PPO vs HMO vs No insurance vs their spouses coverage, etc). Likewise, in socialized health care systems many procedures, therapies, medications, etc are in fact decided by the powers-that-be not to offer sufficient ROI for the entire country or older/sicker populations so there's much less awareness that anything is being denied to them.

Re:So in other words

[MadMidnightBomber]

I was responding to this: "it does not follow that everyone in that country is able to buy the products at the higher price."

Well, in the UK that is not an issue, because taxes are proportional to income and the price at point of sale is about 7 UKP if I remember. Of course I realise that it gets paid for by me and all other taxpayers.

in other words ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... The US citizen will subsidize the third world's medical needs while neglecting to provide medical care, including cheap medicines, to its own citizens.

Good move.

Johnson != Johnson

[tepples]

My current favorite for that B.S. is Johnson&Johnson, "a family [owned] company".

I've never heard JNJ referred to as a family company. Are you confusing it with SC Johnson, the company that makes Ziploc, Windex, and Scrubbing Bubbles products?

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[geminidomino]

My current favorite for that B.S. is Johnson&Johnson, "a family [owned] company".

I've never heard JNJ referred to as a family company.

Their TV commercials (used to?) end with the statement "Johnson and Johnson: A family company". Don't know if they still do, since I stopped watching commercials some years ago.

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[tepples]

Their TV commercials (used to?) end with the statement "Johnson and Johnson: A family company".

Did it sound like the end of this commercial? If so, that's SCJ, not JNJ.

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[geminidomino]

Hrm. Maybe. As I said, been a few years.

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[macraig]

Guys, guys! Same company, different "management era". They still like to proclaim the fact that it's a "family company", as if that actually tells us anything positive? There have been many "family owned" monarchies, few of them considered good by the people they allegedly served.

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[macraig]

Same company!

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[Anonymous Coward]

It does tell us something potentially positive. It tells us that SC Johnson & Son, Inc. is not a publicly traded company, which means that the amorality and money-before-all-else priorities that are built into the publicly held corporation are not necessarily the story at SC Johnson, despite the fact that it's a large and successful company.

It also means that the work the company has been doing for decades to make their company and their products environmentally friendly are not necessarily just greenwashing, as it has to be for publicly traded companies. A closely-held corporation, especially one that is family-owned, can be given different priorities by its owners and can reflect other values besides greed.

Believe me, I understand many of the limits and drawbacks of corporations, but I am careful to differentiate between widely- and closely-held corporations. The difference can be night and day.

It's like how Google's motto used to mean something. When they do something that could be bad for the public or the consumer, the first question asked is "What happened to 'Don't be evil.'?" and the very insightful answer that is generally quickly supplied, especially around here, is "They went public."

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[macraig]

That theory might hold true sometimes but, from what I've seen of this company's continued tactics, it isn't true in this instance. They like to use it as a marketing gimmick and it means little else, from what I can tell.

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he may be talking about the Johnson Brothers Liquor Company, described as "family-owned" on it's website.

Re:Johnson != Johnson

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't it be that they're trying to convey they have products for the whole family?

I'd be impressed...

[OneSmartFellow]

... if it weren't for the fact that I'm skeptical enough to know better.

Ignoring the fact that they spend twice as much on advertising as on R&D, routinely dump their toxic crap in underdeveloped countries; the truth is that the majority of their products are worthless, and may do more harm than good

Re:I'd be impressed...

[Eukariote]

Yup, it is genocide that turns a profit. See here for some US death rates resulting from the health "care" system. The roughly 106.000 yearly deaths because of adverse drug reactions is a statistic that hides a much larger iceberg of deaths indirectly caused by drugs.

You see, the trick is to not kill people outright: you cannot make money off dead people. Instead, you design drugs that cause chronic disease (e.g. Zyprexa which causes diabetes), and market them to the general public, e.g. as a lifestyle drug, so as to get many people to ask their doctor for a prescription. That way you profoundly grow the market for selling further drugs and treatments. Any litigation you can always settle for a fraction of the profit later.

Re:I'd be impressed...

[DanJ_UK]

Paroxetine (Seroxat / Paxil) courtesy of GSK, destroyed the past 10 years of my life due to the effects it had on my mother and will very much torment her for the rest of her life. She turned suicidal, then generally nuts and ended up flipping out, stabbing me in the back with a knife one day 5 - 6 years ago.

There have been countless investigative documentaries, damning evidence that the drug has serious side effects, countless lawsuits against GSK and yet they still won't admit any wrong doing regarding the drug.

But, that's just one in many of Glaxo's arsenal, so I hear.

Not as generous as it seems...

[EddyPearson]

We're actually at a turning point with a lot of these less developed countries. More and more of them are advancing to a point where they're technically capable of making their own generic versions of these extremely expensive drugs (see Cuba).

Politically it would be dynamite. I can see promises of free healthcare winning Elections, and in lieu of democracy, revolutions.

Make no mistake, we're entering dangerous times for Big Drug Inc.

GSK have realized that either they make their prices acceptable, or they may very soon find that their share of the market disappears overnight.

Progress? Debatable.

Pax?

[Technopaladin]

I do not hold to that.

Huge profit margins despite huge R&D

[hellfire]

That's a wives tail that big pharma wants you to believe. Take a look at ATI's profit margin. Now take a look at any of the big pharma's profit margins.

The average total profit margin on these companies' P&L statements is around 30%. That's global, after all factors are considered, including R&D.

Yes, 30 cents of every dollar paid on drugs is pure profit. ATI would kill for that profit margin. No other industry has nearly that much profit. Before the economic downturn, Toyota was something like 6% profit on it's income statement. Yes big pharma has huge research costs, there's no doubt about it, but their prices are still insanely high.

Besides, when all that research is spent on the latest skin care, erection, or anti-baldness pills, or coming up with a reformulation of an old drug that they can charge 1000% markup when the old version only sells for $10, perhaps that R&D is just there to help drive up prices anyway?

An example.

[plasmacutter]

I am without insurance in the US, and medications for a chronic disease I have top $2000 (yes, thousand) a month.

I'm sorry, but most middle and even upper middle class people will groan under that kind of expense, and i'm still just trying to start a career.

Re:An example.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Most if not all of the big pharma companies offer discounts for people in your situation - sometimes mediocre sometimes quite substantial

. This might be worth looking into.

Re: good sales and goodwill

[wisty]

And what is the bet that a slice of this 20% of profits will be re-invested in "educating" medical staff?

OK

[DaMattster]

I am all for helping the poor, but we have to help the poor in our own respective countries first. It is little known that there are parts of the deep south mired in shocking poverty which resembles trips to third world nations. There are areas of the Louisiana Bayous, Macon County, GA, and parts of the Mississippi Delta that have no electricity, running water, sewage treatment, or any other amenity that most others enjoy. I am so sick of our politicians blatantly ignoring the suffering of our own people. The only reason these drugs companies are advocating low cost medications to poor countries is to look like a "responsible corporation." So, the drug companies get additional charitable tax write offs and it is sick. Indeed it is only smoke and mirrors. So, the next time you see a commercial coming from a drug company that looks altruistic, don't believe the bull shit they are spewing.

Big plans for a little planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of these replies make interesting points but it doesn't seem everyone has done their homework on psycho-tropic drugs. For the most part many are addictive. Side effects can be pretty bad too -- from personal experience, like having my sex-drive turned on but my sexual ability turned OFF, the "itch" you can never scratch, etc...

If big pharma is making it's product available to "everybody" then it's bad news for everybody.

It's just a matter of time before drugs become "mandatory".

Not a bad development

[greetings programs]

Big Pharma are lowest on my favorites list, but this development shows that at least they are getting to their senses in regard to their product's place in poorer markets. That is good in the sense that these people will have access to better medicine. Let's now see how long will this pledge last.

Hmm...

[supersloshy]

Define "Cheap"...

Black Market Opportunity

[genoese]

Human nature being what it is, this is an excellent opportunity for black market corruption -- drug company sells to developing country. Corrupt elements in developing country sell back to corrupt black marketeers who then resell in 'rich' countries to corrupt vendors for reduced prices and still make huge profits.
And still the people who need the drugs don't get them, but maybe some actually will, and that's a good thing.

Re:Black Market Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't most of the rich countries have regulations on selling drugs, so selling drugs from black market sources will likely be illegal in the rich countries?

I guess this might work selling from the poor to the not so poor though. However the drug companies certainly don't want this to happen, so they'll do what they can to stop it e.g. stop supplying the people they discover are doing this.

so glad I get to subsidize everyone else again.

[Maxo-Texas]

10 cents over seas and $5 for the same pill here.

Gets really irritating when we are now in the same job market.

You change your health system first

[brunes69]

Drugs are only cheaper in Canada because the provincial governments buy them in huge bulk orders via fixed price contracts, since all hospitals are funded by the taxpayer.

For example if all of the hospitals in one US state got together and ordered their drugs in coordinated bulk orders with fixed price contracts, they would get the same prices Canada gets.

Re:You change your health system first

[Guspaz]

Drugs are not sold by hospitals. Drugs in hospitals are free. For prescriptions, people buy their drugs from a pharmacist. The province isn't the one purchasing those. Pricing has nothing to do with the province.

In fact, prices in Canada are controlled by a federal Government entity, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board:

http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/

They set pricing limits. This has nothing to do with "huge bulk orders".

Re: good sales and goodwill

[daVinci1980]

Let's say you're right. Big pharma is still required to find the thing in nature, refine it, figure out how to mass produce it, figure out how to make it safe (or if it even is), and bring it through the FDA to market.

That costs them a lot of money. They're making investments just like any other company. If they weren't making sound investments, they'd either need to:
a) Invest in something else
b) Go out of business

Neither of those are necessarily in our best interests. Do you honestly believe that nature would be able to provide all of us with cures for the next big bacterial outbreak? If you do, you might be a bit more naive then you think you are.

Reverse Import

[flyingfsck]

Cool, so now we can import cheap drugs from 3rd world countries.

And yet...

[kevind23]

they will still be making a profit.

Greed is a good motivator

[junkgoof]

Greed motivates people to do stuff they would be too lazy to do otherwise. In most other circumstances it is bad. Problem is that most corps have enough money and don't care, which is why most industries lobby government too avoid regulation for stuff like pollution. Companies can make more money being green, but it takes work and change and stuff. Greed is better than lazines.

Pharm corps buy other companies instead of researching.

What happens when you feed and medicate...

[AmazingRuss]

...the poor? In 15 years you have twice as many poor.

Re:What happens when you feed and medicate...

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. and the greenies already say there are too many people on this rock, but we still feed and medicate those that live in the most unsubstantial conditions for them to only breed more people that can't feed and take care of themselves. If we're going to do this, at least sterilize them first.

Re:What happens when you feed and medicate...

[Kaenneth]

Which means that market segment will double in size in 15 years as well.

I am all for charity! BUT...

[Jane Q. Public]

the kind of charity I am for is voluntary charity!

We cannot continue to allow the US and UK to be charged lots more money for goods just so they can be given away to others. The state of our economy is ample evidence of that!

--
"You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." - Abraham Lincolm

In other words

[ThatsNotPudding]

no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US

The UK and US is about to receive a 75% price increase.

Snarking notwithstanding

[kid-noodle]

I note the comments are filled with cynicism, sarcasm & general snarking - a not unreasonable approach to any announcement from GSK or any other pharmaceuticals company.

That said - this is potentially a really fantastic thing. New CEO, new game plan. Also worth noting that GSK is the second biggest pharma company in the world - this has a pretty good probability of forcing other large pharma companies to follow suit and opens the door to more of the same (for example, HIV/AIDS drugs are not covered in the patent pooling - this is still a move in the right direction, it will make subsequent moves along the same lines easier.)

Patent pooling is something NGOs have been asking big pharma to do for years now. This is a hugely positive move.

Of course GSK have motives to do this besides doing good, that does not mean doing good is ruled out.

(And I will now be watching the obits for news of Andrew Witty's untimely demise.)

Re: good sales and goodwill

[macraig]

They want to ensure that doctors and patients in those countries become as dependent upon them as those in countries they have already infiltrated... starting with free samples given to doctors and handed out to patients. Can you hear them respond? "It's okay when WE do that, even though street corner drug pushers do the same thing, because we have only your health and wellness at heart."

Re: good sales and goodwill

[macraig]

Get real. The drugs at issue here aren't antibiotics: they're the sexy current ones that are still covered by active patents, drugs which are typically poisons at anything but minute doses that the liver/kidneys can defuse... the equivalent of chemo-therapy without actually being called that.

The question here is not one of economics, the question is one of ethics: they're not investing in the future and well-being of the whole species, rather they're investing in the financial well-being of their management and investors and shareholders, and doing so often enough at the expense of the well-being of the whole species. It's Big Tobacco all over again in a different outfit.

Quite possibly the worst social crime committed by Big Pharma is the redirection of research efforts: they have diverted research away from long-term permanent cures that benefit society, in favor of research focused on short-term fixes that benefit their shareholders and management. Prescription drugs are not cures, they are lifetime subscription contracts that benefit the supplier.

Far better that they die...

[Goliath]

And thus decrease the surplus population.

Well-known tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

They're trying to go Microsoft on the generics industry (smash by way of dumping), and they're open sourcing stuff that isn't profitable now, in the hope that someone else will come up with a use for it, which is when they will enforce some obscure patent they are retaining.

I assume that charity comes from profits?

[smchris]

Well, you know, just joking. But that CEO is living in cloud cuckoo-land if he thinks the American working and non-working non-rich can support that PR stunt. America done got broken.

90% of Pharma R&D is "me too" drugs

[Paul Fernhout]

From what I've read, more than 90% of drug industry R&D goes into "me too" clones of existing drugs with proven markets and likely ways to produce slight variants. The other 10% maybe genuinely new, but even there, most of the research behind them was done by academics on grants paid by the US government usually spanning decades of academic work. It's true that in the 10% case drug companies are paying for human trials (which are now costing in amounts approaching a billion dollars), but that isn't really R&D in the way most people think of it, and that cost could also be paid by the government (and even is, in some cases). It might be better if the functionality of *producing* drugs could be separated from the functionality of *researching* drugs. In any case, in general, high costs for today's drugs harms people today, whereas it is just speculation that future profit-driven research might help somebody someday. With that said, I have little doubt most people who work in most drug companies sincerely want to help people and see working for these companies as their best alternative. But it is still, overall, a broken health care system.

Consider:
http://www.newint.org/issue165/testing.htm
"Out of more than 100 drugs approved each year by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), only a fraction represent major therapeutic advances'. For example, in 1984, there were 142 new drug applications approved, of which 22 were 'new chemical entities' - that is, used new chemical molecules and were not variations on existing drugs. Out of those 22 new chemicals (mostly antibiotics, antidepressants and agents for heart disease) only two were judged to be 'major advances' by the FDA and eight 'modest advances'. Most of the other 12 were the so called 'me too' drugs by which a company makes its own version of an already marketed drug ... To conclude: we have to have testing for the drugs we need. The colossal waste is in testing on apparently pointless new compounds. That's the problem."

By the way, for many of the conditions drugs make manageable, it is possible water-only fasting might be a better option for some:
From:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/fasting.pdf
"""
Throughout most of the 20th century, which witnessed a period of remarkable medical innovation in surgical techniques, radiation therapies, and new "miracle" drugs, the self-healing mechanisms that are unleashed during water-only fasting were largely unappreciated. However, as the century drew to a close, something extraordinary began to occur. After decades of collective awe of modern medicine and its purveyors, a strong undercurrent of disillusionment began to appear. There came the beginnings of a philosophical revolution that would lead health science in a promising new direction. This new direction centers on the realization that health and healing are best supported when the biological roots of our nature are understood and respected. This new philosophical approach is based on the awareness that health and healing are natural processes. As a result, the focus of attention has increasingly shifted away from the traditional medical emphasis on drugs and surgery toward an exploration of the circumstances and requirements necessary to unleash and enhance these natural processes. Fortunately, unlike health problems in the past--including such phenomena as water-born diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and epidemics of tuberculosis and pneumonia--that at one time were confusing puzzles, our present day epidemics of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer are not nearly so mysterious. It is becoming increasingly clear that the majority of present day health problems are the result of modern dietary excesses. Simply put, most of our health problems are the result of our getting too much of the wrong t

Re:90% of Pharma R&D is "me too" drugs

[Paul Fernhout]

Here is a more recent (2004) article suggesting it is only 75% of new drugs that are "me too":
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/truth-about-drug-companies
"""
The high price of prescription drugs has put -- and kept -- U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the news recently, but Dr. Marcia Angell argues that problems with the industry run even deeper. In her new book, The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It (reviewed in the current issue of Mother Jones), the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine contends that the industry has become a marketing machine that produces few innovative drugs and is dependent on monopoly rights and public-sponsored research.

Angell disputes the industry's reputation as an "engine of innovation," arguing that the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research. At least a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies, writes Angell, but they're sold to the public at inflated prices. She cites Taxol, the cancer drug discovered by the National Institutes of Health, but sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb for $20,000 a year, reportedly 20 times the manufacturing cost. The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug.

The majority of the new products the industry puts out, says Angell, are "me-too" drugs, which are almost identical to current treatments but "no better than drugs already on the market to treat the same condition." Around 75 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA are me-too drugs. They can be less effective than current drugs, but as long as they're more effective than a placebo, they can get the regulatory green light.

Finally, Angell attacks major pharmaceutical industry -- whose top ten companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined -- for using "free market" rhetoric while opposing competition at all costs. She discusses Prilosec maker Astra-Zeneca, which filed multiple lawsuits against generic drug makers to prevent them from entering the market when the company's exclusive marketing rights expired. The company "obtained a patent on the idea of combining Prilosec with antibiotics, then argued that a generic drug would infringe on that patent because doctors might prescribe it with an antibiotic."

Angell, who is a doctor and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, wants to see the industry reformed. She recently sat down with MotherJones.com to talk about how to "ensure that we have access to good drugs at reasonable prices and that the reality of this industry is finally brought into line with its rhetoric." ...
"""

Re:90% of Pharma R&D is "me too" drugs

[hackingbear]

While modern nutrition-rich dietary habit may be a factor to the "modern epidemics", do you know what the average life span was in the good old days? When people died in their 30's from variety of infectious diseases, how could they have times to develop cancers, heart diseases and diabetes? Not to mention, in the good old day, People died without knowing what they got.

And if people had a "better quality of life," that's because they died faster once catching a disease.

All we need to do to solve most of the health problems is to support euthanasia.

Re:90% of Pharma R&D is "me too" drugs

[Paul Fernhout]

Please cite your evidence for human lifespans several thousand years ago. I'll agree that during the past few centuries they were lower, but in a sense, generalizing past that is a form a propaganda to justify the current political regime.

Humanity used to live in relative abundance with a few people with limited wants living on a big planet.
"The Original Affluent Society" by Marshall Sahlins
http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm
"Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times."

Let us call this time "pre-scarcity". Because of the very success of hunter-gatherers, their populations grew, and they got harder to feed. That was the beginning of scarcity. In desperation, people turned to agriculture. But it had problems. Humanity had to suffer the resulting worse nutrition from less diversity of sources. Human skeletons actually were shorter from the advent of agriculture until only reaching hunter-gatherer stature about this century.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6812.html
"For instance, the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago has commonly been seen as a major advancement in the course of human evolution. However, as Larsen provocatively shows, this change may not have been so positive. Compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors, many early farmers suffered more disease, had to work harder, and endured a poorer quality of life due to poorer diets and more marginal living conditions. Moreover, the past 10,000 years have seen dramatic changes in the human physiognomy as a result of alterations in our diet and lifestyle. Some modern health problems, including obesity and chronic disease, may also have their roots in these earlier changes."

You can see this in that human skeletons 10000 years ago were taller than all but for most people in the last 100 years. Medieval suits of armor show this too -- they are too short for most people of this generation.

The creation and spread of various diseases is also tied to humans living in densely packed cities and with livestock they are raising (see the book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel").

So, there has been recent progress, but only after a great setback that took 10000 years to recover from.

Populations grew even further and militaristic bureaucracies arose like hurricanes on a warming ocean.

As Marshall Sahlins suggests, then comes along "Modern Times":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times_(film)
"Modern Times is a 1936 comedy film by Charlie Chaplin that has his famous Little Tramp character struggling to survive in the modern, industrialized world. The film is a comment on the desperate employment and fiscal conditions many people faced during the Great Depression, conditions created, in Chaplin's view, by the efficiencies of modern industrialization."

Let's call this time "scarcity" times. Those are what our recent ancestors lived through, and to an extent we are still living in now. All the things you have read about how certain things have gotten better from the 1800s and early industrialization are probably true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens
But,

Re:90% of Pharma R&D is "me too" drugs

[hackingbear]

See this -- ~30 years up to recently.

Having abundant foods had little to do with life expectancy. For thousands years: a person got bitten by a bad mosquito, died; a woman having trouble delivering labor, died; an infant caught a fever, died. None of them got a chance to develop aging diseases.

Maybe one day, one can replace every failed organ but few will afford to do so repeatedly.

Also, nobody wants to die but having people live too long is like, well, giving mortgages to people who can't afford. We are taxing the system too much.

Re:90% of Pharma R&D is "me too" drugs

[Paul Fernhout]

Wikipedia sometimes links to primary sources but by itself is not a great primary source on a controversial issue (and I am arguing this issue is in part controversial because it is part of the justification for the current social pyramid). For a parallel example, for decades Jane Jacobs was arguing cities existed *before* agriculture, but only now are most people coming to accept that, and that in fact, cities created agriculture in the form we know it now.

On the issues you raise of: "Having abundant foods had little to do with life expectancy. For thousands years: a person got bitten by a bad mosquito, died; a woman having trouble delivering labor, died; an infant caught a fever, died. None of them got a chance to develop aging diseases."

On the medical issues you list, one by one, each has been made worse by "civilization":

Consider:
"History of Malaria Parasite And Its Global Spread"
http://www.malariasite.com/MALARIA/history_parasite.htm
"End of the last glacial period and warmer global climate heralded the beginnings of agriculture about 10000 years ago. It is argued that the entry of agricultural practice into Africa was pivotal to the subsequent evolution and history of human malaria. The Neolithic agrarian revolution, which is believed to have begun about 8,000 years ago in the "Fertile Crescent," southern Turkey and northeastern Iraq, reached the western and Central Africa around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. This led to the adaptations in the Anopheles vectors of human malaria. The human populations in sub-Saharan Africa changed from a low-density and mobile hunting and gathering life-style to communal living in settlements cleared in the tropical forest. This new, man-made environment led to an increase in the numbers and densities of humans on the one hand and generated numerous small water collections close to the human habitations on the other. This led to an increase in the mosquito population and the mosquitoes in turn had large, stable, and accessible sources of blood in the human population, leading to very high anthropophily and great efficiency of the vectors of African malaria. Even though the practice of agriculture had developed throughout the tropics and subtropics of Asia and the Middle East up to several thousand years before those in Africa, simultaneous animal domestication in Asia probably prevented the mosquitoes from developing exclusive anthropophilic habits. In most parts of the world, the anthropophilic index (the probability of a blood meal being on a human) of the vectors of malaria is much less than 50% and often less than 10 to 20%, but in sub-Saharan Africa, it is 80 to almost 100%. This is probably the most important single factor responsible for the stability and intensity of malaria transmission in tropical Africa today."

So, malaria in that sense is a recent cost of agriculture.

Women giving birth in traditional societies in traditional ways (squatting) in knowledeable communities do better than today's Westernized and out-of-shape women who give birth lying down attended by "professionals":
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/laborbasics/a/squatting.htm
"The advantages of squatting have long been known, but in modern medicine has been ignored for positions that were more advantageous for the practitioner's view and the use of instruments such as forceps, stirrups and vacuum extractors. Benefits of squatting include:
* Shortens the second stage of labor (pushing phase)
* Decreases the need for forcep deliveries
* Reduces the need for episiotomy
* Shortens the depth of your birth canal
* Works with gravity
* Increases pelvic diameter by 10+% "

Traditional societi

Oh please

[unassimilatible]

Moore didn't exactly show the experience of the average Cuban. He and his prop were treated like a VIPs so Castro could embarrass Bush and the US. I've been to Cuba and know people currently living there. The healthcare system sucks there. My friend's family members always ask us to bring basic medical supplies, aspirin, antibiotics, vitamins, antiseptics, you name it.

All you need to know about Cuba is police officer make more than doctors, and if you want to find a doctor, hail a cab, because they moonlight driving taxis. Great system!

Re:Oh please

[mesterha]

Moore didn't exactly show the experience of the average Cuban. He and his prop were treated like a VIPs so Castro could embarrass Bush and the US. I've been to Cuba and know people currently living there. The healthcare system sucks there. My friend's family members always ask us to bring basic medical supplies, aspirin, antibiotics, vitamins, antiseptics, you name it.

Yet Cuba is only two countries below the US according to the World Health Organization's rankings. The US is 37 and Cuba is 39. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

sometimes all you need is one "hit"

[olddotter]

There are two types of drugs.

1- Those you take for short periods of times.
2- Those you take for life.

For the first set, what most young healthy people have experience with, the first hit is free attitude doesn't matter. For the life long "maintenance" drugs that could apply.

Not sure where drugs for developing world diseases fit in these two camps.

PS. Apple is more profitable that most of the major drug companies, and is in MUCH better financial shape.

Thank God it's a multi-billion $ industy

[unassimilatible]

This is a multi-billion dollar a year industry we are talking about here. They have no conscience and no morals. Profit is their only motivator. No company does anything out of the goodness of their heart unless it will lead to greater profits and/or market dominance. This is doubly so with the drug industry.

I can't believe what I am reading here. You don't want drug companies to be profitable? Investment dollars follow profit. Would you prefer that people invested in oil companies or tech stocks? If drug companies were not profitable - or even less profitable, those billions would flow elsewhere, leading to less R&D, and less new drugs.

The NIH and university research is great, but why would you want to kill billions more of research dollars by making Big Pharma unprofitable? Who cares what their motives are if it leads to good results? (and yes, expensive drugs are better than no drugs - sorry, I do not believe in Utopia).

Personally, I want Big Pharma to be as profitable as possible, so investment dollars flow into cancer cure research and better heart drugs.

Nonsense, utter nonsense

[unassimilatible]

Actually many of the drugs are found by universities using federal dollars and THEN the drug companies buy the rights and bend you over.

Of course, then the university uses that money to invest in R&D further, since uni's can't actually mass-produce the drugs. But this is a red herring, as the vast majority of new drugs in the US (and therefore the world) are introduced by Big Pharma. Yes, NIH and uni's are important parts of drug research, but the largest part of drug research is done by the private sector. You want to remove that extra research? OK, well you do so by making it unproftable.

I bet the profit margins on THOSE drugs are beyond insane which is why they push them so hard. But if we don't get a handle on the multi $$$$% profits the drug companies are making we are ALL going to lose

No, we are ALL going lose if investors take their billions and invest elsewhere when Big Pharma no longer makes those profits. Investors simply call their brokers and buy stocks in different sectors, and the dollars dry up. No amount of taxing and spending (especially in the broke USA) can ever compensate for that lost investment capital. Bye bye new drugs.

Think of what you are talking about here. Private companies using private dollars to invest in R&D, and you are telling them what they can do with their discoveries and want to arbitrarily limit the return on their investment dollar. Doesn't sound like an industry I want my 401k to be invested in, and I think most investors would agree.

Who are you to tell investors to do this? It is so amazing how "libertarian" /. is until it's someone else's ox to be gored.

Re:Nonsense, utter nonsense

[hairyfeet]

No, we are ALL going lose if investors take their billions and invest elsewhere when Big Corps no longer can dump toxic waste in the rivers. Investors simply call their brokers and buy stocks in different sectors, and the dollars dry up. No amount of taxing and spending (especially in the broke USA) can ever compensate for that lost investment capital. Bye bye new products.

.

See how nicely that works there? Sometimes you have to have rules other than "he who has the gold makes the rules". I have NO problem with them making 300%,400%,hell even 500% profit if the drug is hard to make and it has a small group. But as in the drug Remicade, which they keep lobbying for more groups to be added, I'm willing to bet the actual profit margins are more in the neighborhood of 2000%-3000% profit. Hell drug lords don't make that kind of freaking profits,okay?

And we are NOT talking about something where you can just do without here. I'll use myself as an example. Without remicade the flesh literally falls off my bones. My hands develop blisters, I am unable to hold a pencil, much less do anything productive, and soon after my knees give out and then I am wheelchair bound. Doesn't sound fun, does it? And it isn't like I can go across the street and buy something else, since there IS nothing else. And yet J&J keeps on lobbying to have more conditions treatable by remicade. I wonder why that is? could it be that they are making such massive profits off of it that they need to screw as many folks and insurance companies as possible while they still have the patents? I'm willing to bet that is the case. I don't think you'll have Big Pharma selling their Lear jets if they are capped at 500% profits. And I doubt Wall Street would run away at 5-1 returns on investment either.

But the choices will soon either be these two, which would you have? Either cap profits or go nationalized health care where they simply aren't allowed to sell the drugs with crazy prices because they aren't covered like in the UK. Personally I would rather have #1, thank you VERY much. But the days of 4000% profits are coming to an end. The depression is coming and we just don't have the cash to continue writing the big checks.

Ha, nice methodology

[unassimilatible]

Looking at WHO's methodology, what a joke. "Fairness of financial contribution?" And of course, Cuba is a police state. Not exactly an open, transparent society. So how is WHO they getting open access to information?

Plus, Americans are unhealthy because they are fat and don't exercise and drive everywhere. Cubans, who are starving most of the time and have to walk everywhere obviously have some "advantages" that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Any ranking that puts Canada ahead of the US is one I give little credence to. The US is where rich Canadians go to get their healthcare, LOL.

There is no other country in the world that I would rather be that America when I get sick. Not Cuba, not Canada, not the UK, not France. The USA. Because some part of the population here 1) are illegal aliens or 2) would rather drive late model cars instead of paying for the privilege of heath care (lets face it, the poor already have medicaid), does not affect the 80% of Americans who have kick ass healthcare.

The ranking I care about isn't compiled with some silly left wing methodology. It's called mortality rates for diseases like cancer and heart disease. And the US does a lot better than most of those socialized medicine countries in survivability of those diseases, those which I am most likely to get. You can take your free abortions in Cuba.

Re:Ha, nice methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

So in this post you say "The US is where rich Canadians go to get their healthcare"; two posts earlier you said "Moore didn't exactly show the experience of the average Cuban. He and his prop were treated like a VIPs".

Cognitive dissonance much? Or is this just self-interest?

Re:Ha, nice methodology

[mesterha]

Looking at WHO's methodology, what a joke. "Fairness of financial contribution?" And of course, Cuba is a police state. Not exactly an open, transparent society. So how is WHO they getting open access to information?

That's just one measure, and Cuba didn't do so great in it either. As for how WHO gets their information, they gave up after 2000 as it's too complicated to do this type of assessment. Luckily we still have you.

Plus, Americans are unhealthy because they are fat and don't exercise and drive everywhere. Cubans, who are starving most of the time and have to walk everywhere obviously have some "advantages" that have nothing to do with healthcare.

There's still the matter of those 36 countries above us. Are they all third world countries?

Any ranking that puts Canada ahead of the US is one I give little credence to. The US is where rich Canadians go to get their healthcare, LOL.

I'm sure rich Americans get great health care too. That doesn't mean the country has a good health care system.

There is no other country in the world that I would rather be that America when I get sick. Not Cuba, not Canada, not the UK, not France. The USA. Because some part of the population here 1) are illegal aliens or 2) would rather drive late model cars instead of paying for the privilege of heath care (lets face it, the poor already have medicaid), does not affect the 80% of Americans who have kick ass healthcare.

Just hope you don't get a chronic condition. If your job lays you off and the Cobra runs out your stuck with a pre-existing condition and premiums that are through the roof. Hopefully it won't happen to you, but it's probably happening to someone. That's not what I call insurance. Matters are even worse if you're close to the poverty line; it's estimated that 58% of Americans will spend at least one year in poverty. (Hacker, J. S. (2006). The great risk shift: The new insecurity and the decline of the American dream. New York: Oxford University Press (USA)) and it's estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid http://www2.citizen.org/hrg/medicaid/assets/reports/2007UnsettlingScores.pdf

The ranking I care about isn't compiled with some silly left wing methodology. It's called mortality rates for diseases like cancer and heart disease. And the US does a lot better than most of those socialized medicine countries in survivability of those diseases, those which I am most likely to get. You can take your free abortions in Cuba.

So there are universal healthcare systems that do better than the US in the narrow statistic you care about. So what's your point again?

This is a good thing.

[__aailob1448]

I, for one, applaud this action from Glaxo. Sure, they might have been dragged into showing a modicum of heart kicking and screaming by several governments over the years, but this remains a positive step towards a better world.

And at the end of the day, It's all anyone can ask for. Right?

Your opinion may vary.

Not capable of processing nuance I guess

[unassimilatible]

So in this post you say "The US is where rich Canadians go to get their healthcare"; two posts earlier you said "Moore didn't exactly show the experience of the average Cuban. He and his prop were treated like a VIPs".

Michael Moore showed how the 50 or so high-ranking Communist Party Members and select VIPs get treated. In contrast, Canadians come to America to get the healthcare that the vast majority of Americans (80+%) get (of course they have to pay out of pocket since they don't have American insurance or medicaid). If you can't see the the difference, you must have been educated in American public schools, another argument against the government running anything.

Not really true

[WindBourne]

Ruppe is "freely" traded, BUT the Indian gov plays the market and fixes it against the dollar. This past summer, they started to allow it to drift upwards to lower their costs of imported goods, but a number of hi-tech firms threatened to stop hiring Indian coders. That quickly changed Indian policy. So, no, it is fixed.

To be honest, I can understand why they do it, but we should not allow it. Countries like Brazil and Mexico allows their money to float freely, which mean that once they drop their trade barriers, things will get better (mexico still has trade barriers with EU).

Free Markets

[Garrett Fox]

I'd like to try a free market in health care. That's definitely not what we have now. We have two large federal health care systems (Medicare and Medicaid), not to mention the VA system, which have grown even under Bush. The states have their own bureaucracies, including decidedly non-free laws such as Massachusetts' law ordering citizens to buy health insurance. (Would you say we had a free market in automobiles if everyone were forced to buy them?) So wouldn't it be fairer to say that our current system of moderate socialism has failed, with the question being whether we need more freedom or less?

Economic freedom requires getting government out of the way, not creating government "competitors" subsidized by taxpayers and tangling the private interests with heavy regulation. Ditto for our housing mess: we created two giant federal housing banks, ordered the private banks to make bad loans, then blamed "the free market" when things went south. By the same logic of "free markets" being proven failures, Mike Tyson is a lousy boxer because if you drug him, chain him up, and give me a baseball bat, even I could beat him up.

Who pays?

[Money for Nothin']

TANSTAAFL. So how does GSK afford to do this?

Will the CxOs pay? Doubtful; they are likely just as money-grubbing as the next executive board.

Will the poorer countries pay? Clearly not.

Can R&D and production be outsourced to those poorer countries, to reduce costs? Production, perhaps, but R&D? Doubtful. And you still have the enormous regulatory red tape imposed by e.g. the FDA during development of a new drug (unless the U.S. is not a targeted market for the new drug - which is very unlikely). The FDA's approval process adds an average of $800m to the cost of developing a single drug.

So: management doesn't pay. The recipients and poorer users of the drugs don't pay. Efficiency gains to offset the reduced revenues are an unknown. Assuming the latter is also non-existent, that leaves 1 group of people holding the bag: wealthier countries.

Of course, that's a business decision GSK is well-within its rights to make; assuming no market-distorting price controls, GSK is free to charge whatever prices it sees fit to whomever it wants...

Consider methotrexate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what disease you have, but for many of them, low-dose methotrexate is a viable option to the TNF blockers like Remicade (and Humira, Embrel, etc). It has been around since the 1940s, is dirt cheap, and the side effects are relatively well known due to its use in high doses as a chemotherapy drug. Contrast this to the scary side effects of the TNF blockers (increased vulnerability to TB, rare and fatal blood disorders, cancers and lymphoma..).

So what makes the US and UK so special?

[Anonymous Coward]

A nice gesture. But what makes anyone think the US and UK can afford 3x the prices of the third world? Drug prices are one of the reasons US health insurance is going through the roof. How many people in the US and other non-third world countries can't afford health insurance right now?

I want a new drug,

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Big Pharma is expanding into the 3rd world in a big way now,
When is someone going to make a pill that neutralizes all the other pills that people are pissing into Our water supplies ?

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/03/12/keeping-medicine-out-of-the-water.html

I'm not a big follower of so many pills for so many things. I rarely even take an aspirin. And for me to learn that I am getting various antibiotics, heart meds, and mind-altering drugs through my drinking water because the folks that use those medicines are urinating the leftovers into the water table en-mass doesn't sit well with me at all.
Now I learn that Big Pharma wants to take over and medicate Africa and other 3rd world nations with their products before they clean up the mess they are leaving here.
This is NOT cool, man.
I'd like to have a talk with the board about this.

Re:Hold the plaudits, self-interest is driving thi

[Walter Carver]

Still, whatever the underlying motivation, it's encouraging to see big pharma at last getting more involved with the poorer nations of the world, which have been scandalously ignored.

Involved with the poorer nations eh? :) There is a nice book by John LeCare, "The Constant Gardener". There is also a 2005 movie.