Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlazingArizona

What stupidity. Here’s a clue, folks: It costs well over a BILLION dollars to research and develop a new drug. And that does not count the massive cost of lawsuits etc. Now, if the drug companies can’t make up that price tag and make a BIG profit, why would they risk it?

Anyone who does not understand that does not understand what it takes to develop a new drug, the potential liability involved, and the free market in general.

Frankly, I’m shocked that the Democra#s get it...


2 posted on 05/08/2007 9:49:01 AM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: piytar; BlazingArizona

The vote was not anything so noble.

They voted to require the government to certify that the drugs being imported are safe and effective.

The government agency that would be tasked with that job has already said they can’t do so because they have no regulatory authority over the foreign entities that would be importing the drugs.

So it effectively kills the program, unless the democrats manage to throw another billion dollars at the agency and push for reciprical agreements with other countries to give our agency the access necessary.


3 posted on 05/08/2007 9:52:40 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar
and the free market in general.

If it were a free market, I could buy a company's products in Canada, where they sell for less. That would lead to a price increase in Canada eventually, but that is not my worry.
4 posted on 05/08/2007 9:54:40 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar
What stupidity. Here’s a clue, folks: It costs well over a BILLION dollars to research and develop a new drug. And that does not count the massive cost of lawsuits etc.

The more fair way would be to distrubute the development costs over the entire world instead of just the chumps who live here in the US. Then start enforcing patents so countries can't strongarm drug companies by making them offers like "sell it for $0.10/pill or we'll just produce it ourselves."

5 posted on 05/08/2007 9:55:32 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Parker v. DC: the best court decision of the year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar

Do you know how much money is spent trying to convince you to go to your doctor to ask for a certain kind of drug by name? Do you know if you need viagra or cialis? The drug companies are trying to get you to make the choice rather than your doctor and spending billions to do it. That’s not R&D.


8 posted on 05/08/2007 9:56:20 AM PDT by DemEater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar
Those senators are are: Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Blanche Lincoln, Robert Menéndez, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Ben Nelson, Jay Rockefeller, and Kenneth Salazar.

I don't know if it is a case of getting it or if there are specific reasons why each of these senators voted for it. Kennedy and Kerry on the list makes me believe that there is some sort of money connection in Mass either having to do with the drug industry or the fact that Mass is close to Canada. NJ has a huge drug industry with many prominent labs located there, which explains Frank Lautenberg and Menéndez. Murray, Cantwell,and Baucus come from border states with Canada. I say follow the money.

10 posted on 05/08/2007 9:59:39 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar
What stupidity. Here’s a clue, folks: It costs well over a BILLION dollars to research and develop a new drug. And that does not count the massive cost of lawsuits etc. Now, if the drug companies can’t make up that price tag and make a BIG profit, why would they risk it?

It costs the same in R&D, testing, and liability exposure to develop a new microprocessor. But because Intel and AMD did not make that Faustian decision to buy government "protection" from competition in return for massive regulation, their products sell in an openly competitive world market while still returning large profits.

15 posted on 05/08/2007 10:14:51 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar
What stupidity. Here's a clue, folks: It costs well over a BILLION dollars to research and develop a new drug. And that does not count the massive cost of lawsuits etc. Now, if the drug companies can't make up that price tag and make a BIG profit, why would they risk it?

Sorry that is not true all the time either. I know a research scientist who has developed a new substance that will effect most areas of medicine. The Chinese are already using it, it is being used in Veterinary Medicine already, and Europe is just now allowing it’s use.
It was developed/invented for a few million dollars of government grants and the big Pharm companies are PO'd. In fact the big Pharms have been trying to buy the patents on this product so they can manufacture and sell this product in an effort to recover the 500 million $ they have put into their failed research in this area. I know what the figures are. Big Pharm would make this product for $11 ea, and sell it to hospitals for $250 ea. The hospitals would mark it up from there. All of this on someone else’s research and discovery. They do not have a dime into the research that led to the discovery or refinement of this product but they would still financially rape the public with the markup if they could buy the patents.
I am proud of the doc who developed this product both for his brilliance as a research scientist and also for not selling out to the big Pharm companies. Our Senate just passed another bill that protects our Pharmaceutical companies from competition outside our borders. Many Democrats had to cross party lines to help pass this bill. This is the real story in this. Our politicians are owned by the Pharmaceutical companies.

21 posted on 05/08/2007 10:36:20 AM PDT by oldenuff2no
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar
Well said! I am sure you are going to get flamed by the "I'm a conservative, except when it comes to Big Pharma" wing of FR. It is funny how so many of our brethren turn into Big Government Socialists when it comes to actually having to pay for drugs that keep them alive. They would prefer that their neighbors have their pocketbooks picked by the Nanny State so they can still get cable.
30 posted on 05/08/2007 11:08:21 AM PDT by go-dubya-04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar

You mean Pharma Corps aren’t charities? /sarcasm


31 posted on 05/08/2007 11:10:34 AM PDT by ShandaLear (When something is true, one need not lie to prove it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: piytar

The bulk of Pharmaceutical spending comes from marketing.


37 posted on 05/08/2007 11:28:28 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson