Privatise the NHS

[Fop 1]

How long are the licenses on fancy drugs?

Pretty much as long as you want, if you're cunning, and play the system correctly.

[Park Life 71]

How long are the licenses on fancy drugs?

Pretty much as long as you want, if you're cunning, and play the system correctly.

 

Personally I would start the fightback here. Make 10yr the max for a full license and then let generics have a crack. In Germany for instance very recently they for the first time have given license to a swathe of generics that can now be imported into the healthcare system. Before this they were only buying wildly expensive drugs from within the EU and Swiss only. My friends company had to take the German Govt to court to get the change. Not really good at saving themselves/or money the Germans.

[Renton 18075]

How long are the licenses on fancy drugs?

Pretty much as long as you want, if you're cunning, and play the system correctly.

 

Personally I would start the fightback here. Make 10yr the max for a full license and then let generics have a crack. In Germany for instance very recently they for the first time have given license to a swathe of generics that can now be imported into the healthcare system. Before this they were only buying wildly expensive drugs from within the EU and Swiss only. My friends company had to take the German Govt to court to get the change. Not really good at saving themselves/or money the Germans.

 

Parky, the patent is usually about 10 years in the UK at least (and I assumed the EU including Germany). Of course drug companies play the system a bit to protect their investments and maximise their profits, but seriously, what is the alternative?

[ChezGiven 0]

The Pharmaceutical market in the US is worth $200bn.

 

The tax break for the rich (employed with a health insurance plan) costs the federal government $250bn in lost tax revenue. Thats just one small part of the system.

 

I'm not going to laugh at Parky of Ferp for thinking what they do, as it's not easy to wade through all the arguments. To suggest that the healthcare funding problem in the US is because of the high price of drugs is nonsense though, as these figures demonstrate.

 

The EU spends about $100bn on drugs so there is clearly some room for savings tbf.

[ChezGiven 0]

How long are the licenses on fancy drugs?

Pretty much as long as you want, if you're cunning, and play the system correctly.

[Park Life 71]

Why not make drugs companies tax exempt in return for 3yr licences and an obligation to provide a range of free drugs lower down the exotica scale? Perhaps extend this to beer at some point. What?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

[Park Life 71]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

 

My life is beginning to make sense to me now.

 

Logic has got us nowhere, dig down and you'll see that logic is a disguised preference. [/Nietzsche]

[ChezGiven 0]

JWHQNAMA.

[Happy Face 29]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

 

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US?

 

Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP.

 

I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right?

 

So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Happy Face

[Renton 18075]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

 

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US?

 

Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP.

 

I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right?

 

So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs?

 

Or both, in a nutshell.

 

Btw, loved the prostitute metaphor in that article. I'm going to try that out on some female colleagues and see what they say.

[Park Life 71]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

 

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US?

 

Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP.

 

I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right?

 

So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs?

 

Well the US system isn't really a system its legalised death to the poor. 40% or summat with no cover whatsoever and if hanging around major cities with little money don't kill you they'll farm you off to some war zone or other to finish you off. I can hear them now in the Pentagon "If only the poor weren't so darn healthy"...etc...

 

Hasn't the private/public partnership fucked up the water, trains, and underground??

 

Hasn't the free market fucked up the banks and education??

 

Hasn't our so called democracy led us into a pointless long term war commitment on two fronts costing 1billion a week??

 

Aren't politicians, bankers and insurance companies born liars and criminals??

 

Let's stop talking shit and this pretense of educated middle class coffee morning wanking this thread is turning into and buss some caps.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

 

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US?

 

Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP.

 

I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right?

 

So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs?

 

Well the US system isn't really a system its legalised death to the poor. 40% or summat with no cover whatsoever and if hanging around major cities with little money don't kill you they'll farm you off to some war zone or other to finish you off. I can hear them now in the Pentagon "If only the poor weren't so darn healthy"...etc...

 

Hasn't the private/public partnership fucked up the water, trains, and underground??

 

Hasn't the free market fucked up the banks and education??

 

Hasn't our so called democracy led us into a pointless long term war commitment on two fronts costing 1billion a week??

 

Aren't politicians, bankers and insurance companies born liars and criminals??

 

Let's stop talking shit and this pretense of educated middle class coffee morning wanking this thread is turning into and buss some caps.

 

 

I concur.

 

"Needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk -- at least until the riots grow too large". That "until" provision never seems to be triggered, which is why the behavior continues unabated.

 

I asked a few people at work on Friday if they fancied a bit of a riot. Having received a third email asking us to take a paycut and being the day after AIG announced their record breaking profits I thought I'd get more support than was forthcoming.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Happy Face

[Renton 18075]

Communist countries seem to like their uprisings and riots though HF.

 

Is that your third pay cut or your third e-mail asking if you'll take a pay cut?

[Happy Face 29]

Communist countries seem to like their uprisings and riots though HF.

 

Is that your third pay cut or your third e-mail asking if you'll take a pay cut?

 

It's not a question of either/or though.

 

Third email asking. Thanfully the EU has more stringent employment laws than the US where people were told to like it or lump it.

[Park Life 71]

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern.

 

The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

 

I'm getting confused as to what's being discussed here. Don't we all agree something needs to change in the US?

 

Am i right to assume you think someone who can afford treatment, however expensive, should get it via whichever super duper all inclusive coverage they can afford? I'm happy with that, and that's the way I thought the UK were heading with the story from the OP.

 

I don't think you believe those that can't afford much should take whatever treatment they can afford on the most basic plan (even if it means no cover whatsoever - because you know people will always pay for food ahead of health coverage) either. But that everyone should have a basic level of cover that omits only the most expensive, short term remedies. Right?

 

So isn't the question not whether a 'choice' needs to be made, as it's clear that whoever makes the provision for healthcare will have a choice to make on that score and will investigate the parameters as you say. Isn't the question who makes that choice...the government/indepentent non-profit organisation to ensure maximum coverage and affordability for the taxpayer, or a private insurer looking to ensure maximum profits and minimum costs?

 

Well the US system isn't really a system its legalised death to the poor. 40% or summat with no cover whatsoever and if hanging around major cities with little money don't kill you they'll farm you off to some war zone or other to finish you off. I can hear them now in the Pentagon "If only the poor weren't so darn healthy"...etc...

 

Hasn't the private/public partnership fucked up the water, trains, and underground??

 

Hasn't the free market fucked up the banks and education??

 

Hasn't our so called democracy led us into a pointless long term war commitment on two fronts costing 1billion a week??

 

Aren't politicians, bankers and insurance companies born liars and criminals??

 

Let's stop talking shit and this pretense of educated middle class coffee morning wanking this thread is turning into and buss some caps.

 

 

I concur.

 

"Needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk -- at least until the riots grow too large". That "until" provision never seems to be triggered, which is why the behavior continues unabated.

 

I asked a few people at work on Friday if they fancied a bit of a riot. Having received a third email asking us to take a paycut and being the day after AIG announced their record breaking profits I thought I'd get more support than was forthcoming.

 

You have to set the scene first. Start spreading rumours their jobs are on the line and you saw the bosses drinking champagne and laughing in the boardroom.

[sniffer 0]

Although I don't presume to occupy the same level as you mental giants on here,It's farly obvious that you know fuck all about drug development from filing an NDA to actual launch of a product through it's lifecycle. A suggestion of a 10 year patent life is absurd as it would markedly reduce innovation. And even the current 20 year is too short given the costs and length of time for devolpment. One of the many aspects of this industry that you that you also fail to understand is the costs associated with R&D which do not pan out. Another is that generic companies are actually similar to parasites in that they take but do not give back. Yes the drugs are cheaper, but if you relied on generic companies to further the cause of drug development aimed at disease areas of unmet need, we'll all be facing alzheimer's, parkinsons, heart disease, strokes etc down the line. All of the money generic companies make goes into their back pockets with no advancement in research.

 

You also fail to understand that the US market has financed the vast majority of drug research over the years. Without it, many of the drugs you accept as commonplace would not be available. Bono would really be whining as the africans would be dying at an even higher clip from AIDS than they are now.

[Guest alex]

What an angry little man you are

[Park Life 71]

Although I don't presume to occupy the same level as you mental giants on here,It's farly obvious that you know fuck all about drug development from filing an NDA to actual launch of a product through it's lifecycle. A suggestion of a 10 year patent life is absurd as it would markedly reduce innovation. And even the current 20 year is too short given the costs and length of time for devolpment. One of the many aspects of this industry that you that you also fail to understand is the costs associated with R&D which do not pan out. Another is that generic companies are actually similar to parasites in that they take but do not give back. Yes the drugs are cheaper, but if you relied on generic companies to further the cause of drug development aimed at disease areas of unmet need, we'll all be facing alzheimer's, parkinsons, heart disease, strokes etc down the line. All of the money generic companies make goes into their back pockets with no advancement in research.

 

You also fail to understand that the US market has financed the vast majority of drug research over the years. Without it, many of the drugs you accept as commonplace would not be available. Bono would really be whining as the africans would be dying at an even higher clip from AIDS than they are now.

 

I have little or no interest in saving human life anywhere on this wretched planet therefore don't give a fuck about the development of new drugs. I don't want to save the old, the infirm, the cluttered of mind or the people who are good at rubics cube. I want to see wrongs righted and people who have failed us getting what's coming to them in as manical and short termist way as possible...I hate what mankind has done to this planet across the board and have little regard for people who'll spend five min ordering a coffee and one minute thinking about the consequences of slaughter across five continents.

[Renton 18075]

Although I don't presume to occupy the same level as you mental giants on here,It's farly obvious that you know fuck all about drug development from filing an NDA to actual launch of a product through it's lifecycle. A suggestion of a 10 year patent life is absurd as it would markedly reduce innovation. And even the current 20 year is too short given the costs and length of time for devolpment. One of the many aspects of this industry that you that you also fail to understand is the costs associated with R&D which do not pan out. Another is that generic companies are actually similar to parasites in that they take but do not give back. Yes the drugs are cheaper, but if you relied on generic companies to further the cause of drug development aimed at disease areas of unmet need, we'll all be facing alzheimer's, parkinsons, heart disease, strokes etc down the line. All of the money generic companies make goes into their back pockets with no advancement in research.

 

You also fail to understand that the US market has financed the vast majority of drug research over the years. Without it, many of the drugs you accept as commonplace would not be available. Bono would really be whining as the africans would be dying at an even higher clip from AIDS than they are now.

 

Why the need for such a vitriolic response? Most of what you've said actually has been discussed in detail over the course of this thread and I'd bet my life at least one contributor to this thread knows a fuck of a lot more than you about pharmaceutical product development.

 

There's clearly a balance to be met with regards to drug patent length. Too short and R&D will stall, too long and the NHS and similar providers will not be able to afford the price of the proprietary drugs. Either way we all will lose out. Twenty years (which is effectively ten years of marketing) for a patent seems to work reasonably well as a compromise, do you not think?

[Happy Face 29]

Although I don't presume to occupy the same level as you mental giants on here,It's farly obvious that you know fuck all about drug development from filing an NDA to actual launch of a product through it's lifecycle. A suggestion of a 10 year patent life is absurd as it would markedly reduce innovation. And even the current 20 year is too short given the costs and length of time for devolpment. One of the many aspects of this industry that you that you also fail to understand is the costs associated with R&D which do not pan out. Another is that generic companies are actually similar to parasites in that they take but do not give back. Yes the drugs are cheaper, but if you relied on generic companies to further the cause of drug development aimed at disease areas of unmet need, we'll all be facing alzheimer's, parkinsons, heart disease, strokes etc down the line. All of the money generic companies make goes into their back pockets with no advancement in research.

 

You also fail to understand that the US market has financed the vast majority of drug research over the years. Without it, many of the drugs you accept as commonplace would not be available. Bono would really be whining as the africans would be dying at an even higher clip from AIDS than they are now.

 

 

See page 15.

 

Of the $696M of research into a [HIV] vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech.

 

Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit?

 

It's a myth that pharaceutical companies only earn a fair profit on their investment if the vast majority of the investment is being pumped into research by private companies from the taxpayer.

[Renton 18075]

Although I don't presume to occupy the same level as you mental giants on here,It's farly obvious that you know fuck all about drug development from filing an NDA to actual launch of a product through it's lifecycle. A suggestion of a 10 year patent life is absurd as it would markedly reduce innovation. And even the current 20 year is too short given the costs and length of time for devolpment. One of the many aspects of this industry that you that you also fail to understand is the costs associated with R&D which do not pan out. Another is that generic companies are actually similar to parasites in that they take but do not give back. Yes the drugs are cheaper, but if you relied on generic companies to further the cause of drug development aimed at disease areas of unmet need, we'll all be facing alzheimer's, parkinsons, heart disease, strokes etc down the line. All of the money generic companies make goes into their back pockets with no advancement in research.

 

You also fail to understand that the US market has financed the vast majority of drug research over the years. Without it, many of the drugs you accept as commonplace would not be available. Bono would really be whining as the africans would be dying at an even higher clip from AIDS than they are now.

 

 

See page 15.

 

Of the $696M of research into a [HIV] vaccine between 2000 and 2005, only $59 million has come from the pharma's and £9M from biotech.

 

Having invested less than 10% of the cost, do you think they should reap 100% of the benefit?

 

It's a myth that pharaceutical companies only earn a fair profit on their investment if the vast majority of the investment is being pumped into research by private companies from the taxpayer.

 

That's not a typical case though HF. Investing money in an HIV vaccine is a waste of time and the pharmaceutical companies know this.

 

Anyway, that was discussed yonks ago.

[sniffer 0]

Renton. You'd lose.

[Renton 18075]

Renton. You'd lose.

 

Maybe. But I wasn't referring to myself, I don't work for a pharmaceutical company and pretty much only have an outside knowledge of the private sector.

 

Anyway, what length of patent would you like to see then? Indefinite?

[Park Life 71]

Renton. You'd lose.

 

Maybe. But I wasn't referring to myself, I don't work for a pharmaceutical company and pretty much only have an outside knowledge of the private sector.

 

Anyway, what length of patent would you like to see then? Indefinite?

 

The US is spending $200 billion a year on prescription drugs and this is rising by 10-12% a year.