Privatise the NHS

[Park Life 70]

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.

 

 

 

 

"Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.[2] As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."[3] In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year's supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)"

 

 

You couldn't make it up basically.

[Renton 17842]

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.

 

 

 

 

"Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.[2] As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."[3] In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year's supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)"

 

 

You couldn't make it up basically.

 

Parky, just cutting and pasting random factoids doesn't coherently add anything to the discussion. Do you actually have a point?

[ChezGiven 0]

We did this, the profit of a big pharma company is the same percentage of revenue as Google's revenue/profit. Thats the proportion they retain. Got a problem with the profit retained for shareholders, then point the finger at everyone, not just pharma. My company also spends more on R&D than any other organisation on the planet. $7bn last year alone, this will rise to over $10bn next year. The focus is on 6 areas; Cancer, Alzheimers, inflammation/immunology, pain, psychosis and diabetes.

 

Still a bunch of cunts though, US focused corporations are full of utter wankers.

[ChezGiven 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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

"Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.[2] As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."[3] In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year's supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)"

 

 

You couldn't make it up basically.

 

The average smoker spends more than $1500 a year on his recreational drug.

[Park Life 70]

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.

 

 

 

 

"Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.[2] As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."[3] In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year's supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)"

 

 

You couldn't make it up basically.

 

Parky, just cutting and pasting random factoids doesn't coherently add anything to the discussion. Do you actually have a point?

 

Yes. Drugs companies take the piss and need cutting down to size.

[Park Life 70]

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.

 

 

 

 

"Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.[2] As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."[3] In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year's supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)"

 

 

You couldn't make it up basically.

 

The average smoker spends more than $1500 a year on his recreational drug.

 

 

Not if it wasn't taxed.

[Park Life 70]

We did this, the profit of a big pharma company is the same percentage of revenue as Google's revenue/profit. Thats the proportion they retain. Got a problem with the profit retained for shareholders, then point the finger at everyone, not just pharma. My company also spends more on R&D than any other organisation on the planet. $7bn last year alone, this will rise to over $10bn next year. The focus is on 6 areas; Cancer, Alzheimers, inflammation/immunology, pain, psychosis and diabetes.

 

Still a bunch of cunts though, US focused corporations are full of utter wankers.

 

Is there any way of telling what drugs say the NHS buys mostly?

[Renton 17842]

We did this, the profit of a big pharma company is the same percentage of revenue as Google's revenue/profit. Thats the proportion they retain. Got a problem with the profit retained for shareholders, then point the finger at everyone, not just pharma. My company also spends more on R&D than any other organisation on the planet. $7bn last year alone, this will rise to over $10bn next year. The focus is on 6 areas; Cancer, Alzheimers, inflammation/immunology, pain, psychosis and diabetes.

 

Still a bunch of cunts though, US focused corporations are full of utter wankers.

 

Is there any way of telling what drugs say the NHS buys mostly?

 

Yes.

[Park Life 70]

We did this, the profit of a big pharma company is the same percentage of revenue as Google's revenue/profit. Thats the proportion they retain. Got a problem with the profit retained for shareholders, then point the finger at everyone, not just pharma. My company also spends more on R&D than any other organisation on the planet. $7bn last year alone, this will rise to over $10bn next year. The focus is on 6 areas; Cancer, Alzheimers, inflammation/immunology, pain, psychosis and diabetes.

 

Still a bunch of cunts though, US focused corporations are full of utter wankers.

 

Is there any way of telling what drugs say the NHS buys mostly?

 

Yes.

 

Could say GSK supply all the needs of the NHS under one umbrella for a fixed price/tender?

 

*Chez's eyes light up*.

[ChezGiven 0]

No.

[Park Life 70]

No.

 

 

 

 

Didn't think you'd want that.

[Fop 1]

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.

 

 

 

Yup and we discovered how shockingly little you knew about current vaccine development.

[manc-mag 1]

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.

 

 

 

Yup and we discovered how shockingly little you knew about current vaccine development.

 

 

pot-"kettleing"-black

[Park Life 70]

Pelosi Vows Passage of Health-Care Overhaul

'It Will Win': Confidence Grows as Democrats Plan to Resume Talks

 

By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, July 27, 2009

 

Defying skeptics in her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Sunday to overcome lingering obstacles and pass health-care reform in the House, restoring momentum to President Obama's top domestic priority and order to her own unruly Democratic caucus.

 

"When I take this bill to the floor, it will win," Pelosi (Calif.) said on CNN's "State of the Union." "This will happen."

 

The speaker, who has struggled to overcome a series of recent setbacks, raised the stakes by planning to restart talks Monday among bickering Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of three House panels with jurisdiction over health care and where the bill stalled last week. Democratic leaders are newly confident that these differences can be resolved, possibly in time to bring a House bill to the floor before lawmakers depart Friday for the August recess, although Pelosi did not commit to a timetable.

[Happy Face 29]

The democrats are pussies and want to get their shit together.

 

How come the Republicans can rewrite the laws of the land and face down torrents of vehement criticism but these numbskulls look shaky trying vote a bill through that has the most overwhelming support across the board since someone said "maybe this prohibition thing needs a second look".

Edited July 27, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

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.

 

 

 

Yup and we discovered how shockingly little you knew about current vaccine development.

 

 

pot-"kettleing"-black

 

[ChezGiven 0]

The democrats are pussies and want to get their shit together.

 

How come the Republicans can rewrite the laws of the land and face down torrents of vehement criticism but these numbskulls look shaky trying vote a bill through that has the most overwhelming support across the board since someone said "maybe this prohibition thing needs a second look".

 

I've thought this too and i dont get it either.

[Park Life 70]

The democrats are pussies and want to get their shit together.

 

How come the Republicans can rewrite the laws of the land and face down torrents of vehement criticism but these numbskulls look shaky trying vote a bill through that has the most overwhelming support across the board since someone said "maybe this prohibition thing needs a second look".

 

I've thought this too and i dont get it either.

 

The difference being Bush did most of his sneaky stuff in favour of the rich and powerful.

[sniffer 0]

Because it doesn't have overwhelming support amongst the rank and file democrats in it's present form. Only the loudmouths who see their reputations tied into obama's deadline are trying to hurry it through before the holidays.

[The Fish 9025]

you mean it doesn't have the support of the politicians who're in the pocket of one big business or the other.

 

Democracy, the best government money can buy.

 

 

Who said that?

Edited July 27, 2009 by The Fish

[Happy Face 29]

The Health Care Bill Dies?

The AP reports that “after weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits two key Democratic priorities but incorporates provisions to slow the explosive rise in medical costs.” The deal was likely to “exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers” and a “provision for a government insurance option.” The Wall Street Journal says that “individuals familiar with the negotiations suggested” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus “would like to unveil a deal later this week. But unclear Monday was whether” ranking Republican Sen. Charles Grassley “would sign onto the deal and pave the way for committee action next week.”

 

via USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Tuesday, July 28, 2009.

 

Well, as the French would say… Quelle surprise!

 

It’s funny, earlier this summer I was watching the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon Final. Great match in a way, final set was 30 games long, one of the all-time epic battles. And yet, as I watched it, I thought to myself, “This has to be the least suspenseful epic sporting event of all time.” Because there was never any doubt in my mind that Federer was going to win the match. I simply could not envision a scenario where anything else than a Federer victory could happen. I think I even turned it off at 7-7 in the final set, figuring I could catch Federer’s award ceremony later on.

 

It’s the same with this health care bill. Who among us did not know this would happen? It’s been clear from the start that the Democrats would make a great show of doing something real, then they would fold prematurely, ram through some piece-of-shit bill with some incremental/worthless change in it, and then in the end blame everything on Max Baucus and Bill Nelson, saying, “By golly, we tried our best!”

 

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, or anyone else. If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds.

 

The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes.

 

It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters. The situation we have here is an angry and desperate population that at long last has voted in a majority that it believes should be able to pass a health care bill. It expects something to be done. The task of the lawmakers on the Hill, at least as they see things, is to create the appearance of having done something. And that’s what they’re doing. Personally, I think they’re doing a lousy job even of that. I lauded Roddick for playing out the string with heart, and giving a good show. But these Democrats aren’t even pretending to give a shit, not really. I mean, they’re not even willing to give up their vacations.

 

This whole business, it was a litmus test for whether or not we even have a functioning government. Here we had a political majority in congress and a popular president armed with oodles of political capital and backed by the overwhelming sentiment of perhaps 150 million Americans, and this government could not bring itself to offend ten thousand insurance men in order to pass a bill that addresses an urgent emergency. What’s left? Third-party politics?

 

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

[Fop 1]

Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Obama's challenge is in contracting a sector where private interests are so strong. To reduce costs, someone has to get paid less. He will therefore probably try to freeze health expenditure growth, grow the economy and thus shrink the share of GDP it takes up. Would be my guess on how this will play out anyway.

 

Chez wins.

[Happy Face 29]

Bill O'Reilly clearly understands the nuances.

 

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270052

 

 

[ChezGiven 0]

What a retard. The comments below the video are a giggle too.

 

Apparently the lefties are hypocrites because they called him thick and lefties shouldnt be prejudiced against people with learning disabilities. Or something.

 

Fuck me, this world.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ChezGiven