Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Lethevich]

Hmm, how exactly is he being "evil"?

It was an offhand exaggeration wondering about why his language is considered acceptable or even desirable. You don't treat victims that way in everyday life, and on stage shouldn't be different. It kind of sounds like he realised 'oh wait, my audience might have issues with what a jerk I am' when he tacks on the "I sympathise" part, and the tone reveals a major lack of empathy which given how often it comes up with this person does make him seem seem pretty f-ed up

[Todd]

why his language is considered acceptable

To be honest, this is a terrifying clause in a sentence.  Who deems what is and is not "acceptable"?  You have to look at everything Santorum said, and the full context.  Political speech - and everything a person running for office says in a public setting is political speech - ought not to be held to the same standard of 'decency' in everyday life.  (Oh, John, that is terrible, I wish I could help.)  Who cares about this specific person when it comes to public policy?  Public policy is about the public, not one pathetic (in a strict and not pejorative sense) person. 

That's not to say I like or endorse Santorum - I loathe him, actually, for a variety of reasons - but public health policy is something a bit bigger than one schizo and his/her $7K a year needs.

[mahler10th]

Yes, you are.  Your prior post, and this most recent, imply or state that pharma companies should drop all advertising for R&D.  I maintain they should not.  Yep, they are profitable - that's rather the point of patents and the temporary monopoly they bestow, wouldn't you agree? - but advertising helps reap some profits.

The fundamentals of elementary Capitalism are at stake here.  If it weren't for advertising, the Capitalist Economy would not exist.  If all advertising was 'dropped' in the pharmaceutical sector, their businesses would not exist, or at best R&D with less feedback would drop to snails pace, no matter how much was thrown at it.  It is a delicate balancing act, savoury or not. 
And that is my great political speech for the month.   

[ibanezmonster]

Yes, you are.  Your prior post, and this most recent, imply or state that pharma companies should drop all advertising for R&D.  I maintain they should not.  Yep, they are profitable - that's rather the point of patents and the temporary monopoly they bestow, wouldn't you agree? - but advertising helps reap some profits.

I'm just questioning it. If the advertising helps to fund the research, then good. Otherwise, I hope they are actually doing something good with the money...

[Coopmv]

Not saying what they should or shouldn't do, just wondering about Santorum's point. He makes it sound like research is the only reason why drug prices are so high; but obviously, there's something more to it than that if they have enough extra money to run so many ads.

I do believe there may be other reasons why drug prices are high in the US.  Since every pharma sells its drugs worldwide, is it possible that we are actually subsidizing the rest of the world?  For years, Japanese tourists flocked to NYC to buy Japanese electronics, which cost far more in their country of manufacturing.  Could it be that when it come to drugs, we Americans are doing the same the Japanese were doing in electronics?

[ibanezmonster]

I do believe there may be other reasons why drug prices are high in the US.  Since every pharma sells its drugs worldwide, is it possible that we are actually subsidizing the rest of the world?  For years, Japanese tourists flocked to NYC to buy Japanese electronics, which cost far more in their country of manufacturing.  Could it be that when it come to drugs, we Americans are doing the same the Japanese were doing in electronics?

That's what several of the comments I've read said, so you may very well be correct.

[Florestan]

Political speech - and everything a person running for office says in a public setting is political speech - ought not to be held to the same standard of 'decency' in everyday life.

First you criticize Greg for telling pharmaceutical companies what they should do. Now you are telling us what we ought to do. Not very consistent a position, ain't it? 
 

Who cares about this specific person when it comes to public policy?  Public policy is about the public, not one pathetic (in a strict and not pejorative sense) person.

It can be inferred from the above that it doesn't matter if one goes to hell because of a public policy as long as millions other benefit from it. Is this really what you think?

[Todd]

First you criticize Greg for telling pharmaceutical companies what they should do. Now you are telling us what we ought to do. Not very consistent a position, ain't it?

Two things here.  First, I'm not criticizing Greg for his opinions, I'm merely questioning some of his critiques and the assumptions underlying them.  Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency."  Political speech is treated differently than other speech in the US - the whole First Amendment thing.  Am I to take it that you think political speech should be more controlled? 

And of course, if you think about it, I'm saying let pharma companies do their thing and let Rick Santorum do his thing.  That's actually quite consistent. 

It can be inferred from the above that it doesn't matter if one goes to hell because of a public policy as long as millions other benefit from it. Is this really what you think?

First, your question assumes one believes in things like heaven and hell.  Not everyone does, and to be honest, trotting this out in the context of schizophrenia medication is rather silly.  Really, will someone go to hell if a person with schizophrenia does not get Abilify?  (One must also wonder if there are alternative treatments, or if only the name brand will do.)  Second, sometimes public policy, which applies to the public in general, will not help every one in every case.  Sorry, that's the way it is. 

Could it be that when it come to drugs, we Americans are doing the same the Japanese were doing in electronics?

That's absolutely the case.

[ibanezmonster]

That's absolutely the case.

canadadrugs.com, canadadrugs.com! 

[eyeresist]

"Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy's case, but he also believed in the marketplace."

As with lawyers, plumbers and the funeral industry, big pharma knows you can take people for a fortune when they're in desperate straits. Yay unregulated free market!

If all advertising was 'dropped' in the pharmaceutical sector, their businesses would not exist, or at best R&D with less feedback would drop to snails pace

Because sick people wouldn't buy medicine if it wasn't advertised?

[Florestan]

Two things here.  First, I'm not criticizing Greg for his opinions, I'm merely questioning some of his critiques and the assumptions underlying them. 

That's fair anough and I have no problem with that.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency." 

I mean your consistency. You say, rightly, that Greg should not suggest pharmaceutical companies what they should or should not do. And then you say

Political speech - and everything a person running for office says in a public setting is political speech - ought not to be held to the same standard of 'decency' in everyday life. 

thus clearly suggesting what I, or Greg, or Sara, or anyone for that matter, ought to do or not. So bottom line, either you grant nobody - yourself included - any right to tell others what to do or not do, in which case the above quote is plainly inconsistent with that, or you grant such right to some - yourself included - but not to everybody, in which case the position itself is plainly inconsistent.

Political speech is treated differently than other speech in the US - the whole First Amendment thing.  Am I to take it that you think political speech should be more controlled?

My point was not about political speech but about your "speech".

First, your question assumes one believes in things like heaven and hell.  Not everyone does

Your hair-splitting is well-known to anyone who has had even the slightest exchange with you, but don't you think it's not going to get you further than that? Substitute "being left with poor or no options" for "going to hell", if you are so averse to a common metaphor which has ceased long ago to carry any specific religious message.

sometimes public policy, which applies to the public in general, will not help every one in every case.

Thank you for posting a truism. Yet there is a difference between "not helping" and "harming" - mind you, I'm not talking about any specific policy, case or person: it's a matter of principle.

[Todd]

As with lawyers, plumbers and the funeral industry, big pharma knows you can take people for a fortune when they're in desperate straits. Yay unregulated free market!

I assume you did not choose the four industries at random, given that all of them engage in uncompetitive practices.  Doctors, too, for that matter.

Because sick people wouldn't buy medicine if it wasn't advertised?

They may not buy drug X if they don't know about it.  That may be a problem if drug X is better than drug A for treating disease N.  But even if they will buy drug X, so what?  Non state-owned pharmaceutical companies must earn returns for shareholders.  Advertising is known to increase sales and thus profits and thus returns to shareholders.  That's a good thing. 

So bottom line, either you grant nobody - yourself included - any right to tell others what to do or not do, in which case the above quote is plainly inconsistent with that, or you grant such right to some - yourself included - but not to everybody, in which case the position itself is plainly inconsistent.

Utter nonsense.  My reply was specifically in response to someone questioning why Santorum's speech was considered acceptable.  My response is that political speech ought not to be constrained by such considerations.  Anyone's political speech.  So Lethevich can ask the question, I can reply, Greg can write whatever, as can you.  I'm not telling anyone what they should do, I'm merely stating that political speech ought not to be held to some arbitrary standard of decency or acceptability, whatever those are exactly.  It's a pretty basic principle actually.  If you don't find it consistent, that's not my issue.

[ibanezmonster]

They may not buy drug X if they don't know about it.  That may be a problem if drug X is better than drug A for treating disease N.  But even if they will buy drug X, so what?  Non state-owned pharmaceutical companies must earn returns for shareholders.  Advertising is known to increase sales and thus profits and thus returns to shareholders.  That's a good thing. 

I thought stuff like this was up to doctors, not people. Just regular medication that anyone can buy is a totally different story, but when it comes to expensive prescription medication, usually that's up to the doctor. Or do ads help sales in the cases where doctors give you a choice...? (I've rarely ever had to go to the doctor in my life, so I honestly have no clue).

[Todd]

Or do ads help sales in the cases where doctors give you a choice...?

Advertising "helps" in a couple ways.  First, it makes consumers aware of drugs so that they may demand said meds.  Viagra and other ED drugs are rather obvious examples.  They apparently work quite well, but doctors would hardly be prescribing huge amounts of the drugs were it not for the PR blitz.  ED is certainly an issue for the men who have it, though it's hard to say that it is a serious public health issue.  Second, drug sales reps travel around peddling their wares to doctors directly, trying to convince doctors that drug X is better than drug Y, or that drug Z is brand new a treats a heretofore untreatable ailment.  Sometimes it works, sometimes not.  Some of the sales practices have been questioned (eg, implications of kickbacks), and some medical organizations ban direct doctor contact with pharma reps (eg, some big HMOs).  Word has got to get out some way, though.  I'm not a doctor, but I think it's safe to assume that doctors do keep abreast of developments in their field, but from a pharma company's perspective, some ads and sales reps may help their cause.  I'm sure there are doctors on the forum who can provide much more insight into the process. 

[eyeresist]

They may not buy drug X if they don't know about it.  That may be a problem if drug X is better than drug A for treating disease N.  But even if they will buy drug X, so what?  Non state-owned pharmaceutical companies must earn returns for shareholders.  Advertising is known to increase sales and thus profits and thus returns to shareholders.  That's a good thing. 

If for you "good" is synonymous with "most profitable". In strict medical terms, the only advertising necessary is medical information directed purely at doctors, druggists and hospital suppliers. Pretty much everything beyond that is either simple bribery of medical officials, or a basic snake oil pitch for the suckers (do YOU suffer from Restless Leg Syndrome?). Both of these are immoral.

[Todd]

If for you "good" is synonymous with "most profitable".

When discussing for-profit firms, "most profitable" is an unambiguously good thing.  You proclamations of morality smack of just a wee bit of sanctimony.  Perhaps you have a business model for a successful and righteous pharma company? 

[eyeresist]

So expecting moral behaviour = sanctimonious.

I guess, given the state of US politics, there's no point trying to hold anyone to account for bribing and swindling people.

[Todd]

So expecting moral behaviour = sanctimonious.

It can, yes.

I guess, given the state of US politics, there's no point trying to hold anyone to account for bribing and swindling people.

It is true that only the US has such issues.  Other countries have completely eliminated such behavior.  Certainly the Australian government makes sure that mining deals with the Chinese benefit the whole population without disproportionate benefits accruing to specific companies and connected people, and it makes sure that environmental concerns are top priority and no corners are cut, right?

As to the old bribing and swindling and pharma companies, well, if your only response is knee-jerk, you never see a need to dig any deeper.  As stated before some large healthcare delivery companies strictly forbid doctors from interacting with sales reps.  They do it for more business reasons more than "moral" reasons, though, so that means they are probably bad, too.  Yes, yes, pharmaceutical companies devote literally tens of billions of dollars to R&D annually, and yes, the large majority of the research ends up going nowhere, costing billions, and yes, some of the drugs actually help people by, you know, treating illnesses, but just who do the management of those companies think they are, trying to earn a profit by leveraging salesmanship and advertising?  Pharma companies are clearly bad.  (Hell, all for-profit companies are bad.)  National governments should take over all such research.  That will clean up the industry and deliver drugs people need at prices they can afford in the most timely manner possible.

It should be noted that the above applies to only US pharma firms, by the way.  The industry is global, with European giants, but only US firms display the bad traits while the European giants are models of righteousness.  Right?  I mean, if that's not the case, that would have other implications.

Wow, things are much easier when one applies such a filter!

[eyeresist]

Certainly the Australian government makes sure that mining deals with the Chinese benefit the whole population without disproportionate benefits accruing to specific companies and connected people,

Funny you should mention that..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax

Yes, yes, pharmaceutical companies devote literally tens of billions of dollars to R&D annually, and yes, the large majority of the research ends up going nowhere, costing billions, and yes, some of the drugs actually help people by, you know, treating illnesses, but just who do the management of those companies think they are, trying to earn a profit by leveraging salesmanship and advertising?

A third of medical research funds in the US come from the government, together with charities and private individuals, who are no doubt massive suckers for putting the results into the public domain and not wringing every cent out of it they can.

"leveraging salesmanship and advertising" - these are pleasant euphemisms for unethical behavior. But if it's profitable, how can I possibly criticise? And it's sort of legal-ish - or at least no-one of influence within reach of a lobbyist actively tries to stop it (the lobby spent $168 million in 2007, which must have paid for an awful lot of "education on the issues") - so why should anyone ever feel any sort of niggling doubt that abusing and manipulating millions of people might be something ...shameful?

[ASIN]0743247442[/ASIN]

It should be noted that the above applies to only US pharma firms, by the way.  The industry is global, with European giants, but only US firms display the bad traits while the European giants are models of righteousness.  Right?  I mean, if that's not the case, that would have other implications.

Would it imply that pharma companies can sell their drugs at affordable prices and still make massive profits?


EDIT: Apologies to everyone for derailing the thread   I'm going to shut up now.

[Todd]

Funny you should mention that.....

Isn't that the tax that brought down Rudd and resulted in downward changes to the proposed tax afterward?  Nope, no political chicanery there, or hints of caving to corporate interests.  And certainly environmental concerns are being attended to in an efficacious manner.

Would it imply that pharma companies can sell their drugs at affordable prices and still make massive profits?

Let's take a look at the first thing that pops up on the first link you provided, shall we?


"EU countries closely regulate pharmaceutical prices whereas the U.S. does not. This paper shows how price constraints affect the profitability, stock returns, and R&D spending of EU and U.S. firms. Compared to EU firms, U.S. firms are more profitable, earn higher stock returns, and spend more on research and development (R&D). Some differences have increased over time. In 1986, EU pharmaceutical R&D exceeded U.S. R&D by about 24 percent, but by 2004, EU R&D trailed U.S. R&D by about 15 percent. During these 19 years, U.S. R&D spending grew at a real annual compound rate of 8.8 percent, while EU R&D spending grew at a real 5.4 percent rate. Results show that EU consumers enjoyed much lower pharmaceutical price inflation, however, at a cost of 46 fewer new medicines introduced by EU firms and 1680 fewer EU research jobs."


Yes, indeed, drug prices in the EU are lower.  They are also lower in Canada, presumably Australia, and a host of other countries.  And EU firms are very profitable.

However, that's the here and now.  Pharma firms are about the future, too, especially as patents have relatively short lives, especially compared to the large capital investment in new drugs (around $1.7 billion per drug, if memory serves).  Based on the evidence you provided, EU firms will only have a bright future if they acquire other firms that engage in R&D, as they have done in the last decade.  (It didn't used to be called GlaxoSmithKline, for instance.)  US firms are engaged in more R&D, which means more drugs in the pipeline, which means more long term profits for US firms.  As was mentioned previously in this thread (I think it was this thread), the US in effect subsidizes the rest of the world in terms of new drug development.  I'd have to look into the amount of R&D funding that comes from non-corporate sectors, but assuming the one-third figure is accurate, well, good.

So, eyeresist, what exactly is your prescription for a profitable and righteous drug industry?  If it can't be profitable, what is your prescription for an effective and righteous drug industry?  You like to throw up lots of stats, but how do you address the key one of R&D?  Because make no mistake, once patents expire, the Indian generic drug makers are going to devour the market.