|
||
|
Title: A modest proposal.... Post by Not4Hire on Oct 30th, 2003, 12:09am ...which is NOT *my* idea. ...I heard a pretty good idea today(IMHO): regarding the (existing) government subsidy of drug research. As you probably know, [NOW] the FDA has to OK the drugs we all take for *whatever* malady. And you also know that taxpayer's Dollar$ are used to finance this research. And then the Drug Companie$ are free to charge us whatever the market will bear (like $135/2 doses of Imitrex) ...because they CAN.... ...the Proposal is: Drug Companies will be able to use taxpayer dollars for research...and THEN may charge US (the users) for the ACTUAL COST to produce the drug, ADVERTISE and market the drug, and a 15% profit... That's ALL..... If they choose to use THEIR OWN FUNDS for research, marketing, advertisement, production, etc. ... THEN they can charge whatever they want.... FAIR ENOUGH? Think a moment of the implications of this.... and then comment (or NOT)...... |
||
|
Title: Re: A modest proposal.... Post by Karla on Oct 30th, 2003, 3:44am It will depend on what medicines you are on. Right now I pay $12 for one of my meds that is without insurance. I think that price would actually go up under this new proposal. However, makers of imitrix would go down I would hope. I would like to think the average american would benifit under this plan but somehow I know it means taxes are being raised and I don't like that idea at all :-/ It would mean the younger generation is paying in the long run for the older generations medicines. Because medicare generally doesn't cover perscriptions and older people on medicare generally are not taxed alot. I don't know I have mixed feelings about it. |
||
|
Title: Re: A modest proposal.... Post by suzy617 on Oct 30th, 2003, 4:29am Hmmm, thought you were gonna propose to me. :-/ Good morning, Suzy |
||
|
Title: Re: A modest proposal.... Post by brain_cramps on Oct 30th, 2003, 4:59am Before I start, I'll say that I realize that the tax laws and healthcare structure in Canada and the Canada are VERY different. Yes, we (in Canada) have healthcare that is funded, to a large degree (or entirely, depending on the province) by the government. We also have higer income tax rates. Determining which system is "better" would be impossible as it would depend a lot on the individual's income, medical requirements, etc... Not a lot of people would be in the exact same situation. That being said, lets look at this from an American perspective... Karla: I don't see how the taxes would go up. In fact, I think they "should" go down. (We all know the probability of that happening, regardless of the reason. ;)) Because the government would not have to give/lend (;)) money to the drug companies, they should have more to go around.... ie. spend on other projects that are probably currently underfunded. Lets say for a moment that there were no underfunded projects (yeah, right). This would obviously leave a large surplus, equal to the amount being given/lent to the drug companies, thus reducing the amount of taxes required. Not4: IMHO one of two things would happen (possibly both). a) The number of NEW drugs being developed would drop sharply. The drug companies would drastically reduce research and development of new drugs because of the costs that they would have to pay out of their own pockets. Add into this, the drop in revenue, there is no way they could keep up their current R&D budgets (unless...) b) The cost of prescriptions would go up drasctically. Since they would have to borrow moeny from an independent source due to the high R&D costs, they would have a huge debt to service driving up the costs of medication. Also, at this point, they would be able to charge whatever they want for prescriptions (not that they don't already). While I don't think anyone would want either of these scenarios to take place, I believe there should be some type of limit on what they can earn while "using" someone's funding other than their own (similar to the scenario you mentioned, but higher than 15%). This would in, all probability, be impossible to enact. Also, some type of fiscal "self-responsibility" is needed (ie not giving top executives huge bonuses). Once again, we all know the chances of this happenning. just ramblin but you asked for a comment, grant 8) |
||
|
Title: Re: A modest proposal.... Post by BarbaraD on Oct 30th, 2003, 6:39am It's something to think about... But there's no way we're getting lower taxes - And probably no way we're getting lower drug costs so I figure, until WE get a lobby going in Congress we're SCREWED either way. :P Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: A modest proposal.... Post by tommyD on Oct 30th, 2003, 7:53am Their lobby is a lot better funded than our lobby could ever be. They have the US Administration and most of Congress beholden to them. My fantasy: surround the Novartis or Glaxo or whichever annual shareholders meeting with a hundred thousand patients of all kinds... ala WTO. They get to go home when we’re happy. Just a fantasy... The drug companies always point to their research investment. Remember that all scientific research is built on the research that has come before, and much of THAT research is funded by the taxpayers, foundations, universities... A question (not rhetorical): Do the pharmcos make all their research results public...how much is proprietary and conmfidential? And brain cramps, I must respectfully disagree. Drug companies are still driven by profits, and they will continue research because they must compete. That’s the idea of capitalism. The drug companies want their profits and patent rights (Capitalism!) but they also want to be protected from risk (NOT Capitalism!). If a corporation can launch large ventures without borrowing money, then they have too much money and not enough risk. Such a situation leads to mediocity. (Can you say, “Microsoft?”) Enough of my uninformed philosophizing. Near-term practical solution: Grow your own medication. www.clusterbusters.com -tommyD |
||
|
Title: Re: A modest proposal.... Post by brain_cramps on Oct 30th, 2003, 8:24am on 10/30/03 at 07:53:57, tommyD wrote:
While I understand what your saying, my point is: With any business venture there is a point at which operations are not profitable. With the HIGH cost of R&D, if the potential profit wasn't high enough, it is conceivable (in theory) that the drug companies would just say "Well... there's not enough money to make operations feasible anymore. It was great while it lasted." and close their doors. While this is highly improbable in the real world, every business still has to assess its risks, costs and potential profit ahead of time. If the potential profit is outweighed by the costs, there is not much sense taking the risk regardless of the prior investment. grant |
||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |