Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: New Cure For Blindness Priced at $850,000

  1. #31
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,866
    Thanks
    12122

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    humans arent just motivated by profit.
    Sorry, people with money are. They don't just give money away and don't expect return. Yeah, some will, but they can't throw it all away on failed drugs. YOu need to make money to develop new drugs. EArly stage investors would never risk losing their money if there wasn't a big return expected for their successes. ANd the larger companies often buy companies that started from nothing from investors taking the risk. Many big pharma fill their pipeline by acquiring ocmpanies that have a drug in development.

    THe people that say that have no idea what goes into developing a drug. You would be amazed that there are even drugs that come out with how many failures there are and how much time and money goes into it. And even if everything works, another company might have made a drug that is slightly better, or only needs to be taken once a day vs twice, and then you get none of the market

  2. #32
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,367
    Thanks
    27450

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Those evil socialists!
    My daughter works in big pharma and recently worked with colleagues at McGill University in Montreal. She couldnt believe the difference. Researchers her age there were able to bring more money home and could afford to conduct their own research. One woman she met there even bought her own equipment for her home and did independent research there! They advance sooner as a result up the ladder. Here our young are so in need of a paycheck to pay off loans, that would never happen. Companies here also demand patents for anything developed even if you did it on your own time.
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #33
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,525
    Thanks
    20636

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Prove it.
    He cant

  4. #34
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    34,190
    Thanks
    26968

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    France and Cuba also have higher education paid for by the govt. They have no such thing as student debt.
    sounds like the peeps benefit with better health care, not just a profit motivated few.
    Thanks from Madeline

  5. #35
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,367
    Thanks
    27450

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    sounds like the peeps benefit with better health care, not just a profit motivated few.
    You cant just have better healthcare without making other massive structural changes first. Other countries did that with free higher education, training programs, guaranteed incomes etc Knowing the knuckleheads here in the US, we will implement one without the others and then say "doesnt work!"
    Thanks from Madeline

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,572
    Thanks
    1591

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    We ALREADY paid for this drug, by allowing the most generous R & D costs deductions to Big Pharma of any industry in the US, and by paying for some portion of the needed research. NOBODY is contending this drug will cost $850,000 to produce. They aren't making it from rare truffles, or moon dust.

    This country MUST adopt universal health care -- I'm so angry about this drug's price, I can't even experience joy at the news that some blindness can be cured. What a bunch of greedy psychopaths run our pharmcuetical companies!

    Your thoughts?
    Is covered by Obamacare?

  7. #37
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,177
    Thanks
    1134

    From
    Maryland USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    Sorry, people with money are. They don't just give money away and don't expect return. Yeah, some will, but they can't throw it all away on failed drugs. YOu need to make money to develop new drugs. EArly stage investors would never risk losing their money if there wasn't a big return expected for their successes. ANd the larger companies often buy companies that started from nothing from investors taking the risk. Many big pharma fill their pipeline by acquiring ocmpanies that have a drug in development.

    THe people that say that have no idea what goes into developing a drug. You would be amazed that there are even drugs that come out with how many failures there are and how much time and money goes into it. And even if everything works, another company might have made a drug that is slightly better, or only needs to be taken once a day vs twice, and then you get none of the market
    Your points are well made. The cost of bringing drugs to market includes the cost of the failures as well. Companies must respond to their total costs, not just the singular costs of a single product. Additionally, I think some may have the wrong perception regarding governmental research grants and support. Governmental grants and support fundamentally addresses the causes of health concerns, not the development of products to respond to those causes. The drug companies pick up the primary cost of developing product solutions.

    I would also caution those that oppose any profit motive in the health care arena. Do they honestly believe advancements and treatments would remain the same when totally financed by the taxpayers. Look at the current debate on the potential budgetary cuts required to continue the financing of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all funded by taxpayers. Do we really want all of our health services and technological advancements subject to such governmental budgetary issues.
    Last edited by TheWahoo; 4th January 2018 at 09:31 AM.
    Thanks from Dr Sampson Simpson

  8. #38
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    34,190
    Thanks
    26968

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    Sorry, people with money are. They don't just give money away and don't expect return. Yeah, some will, but they can't throw it all away on failed drugs. YOu need to make money to develop new drugs. EArly stage investors would never risk losing their money if there wasn't a big return expected for their successes. ANd the larger companies often buy companies that started from nothing from investors taking the risk. Many big pharma fill their pipeline by acquiring ocmpanies that have a drug in development.

    THe people that say that have no idea what goes into developing a drug. You would be amazed that there are even drugs that come out with how many failures there are and how much time and money goes into it. And even if everything works, another company might have made a drug that is slightly better, or only needs to be taken once a day vs twice, and then you get none of the market
    the american tax payer funds a lot of early research, then we fund profits with our health care dollar.
    Last edited by labrea; 4th January 2018 at 09:47 AM.

  9. #39
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    34,190
    Thanks
    26968

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWahoo View Post
    Your points are well made. The cost of bringing drugs to market includes the cost of the failures as well. Companies must respond to their total costs, not just the singular costs of a single product. Additionally, I think some may have the wrong perception regarding governmental research grants and support. Governmental grants and support fundamentally addresses the causes of health concerns, not the development of products to respond to those causes. The drug companies pick up the primary cost of developing product solutions.

    I would also caution those that oppose any profit motive in the health care arena. Do they honestly believe advancements and treatments would remain the same when totally financed by the taxpayers. Look at the current debate on the potential budgetary cuts required to continue the financing of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all funded by taxpayers. Do we really want all of our health services and technological advancements subject to such governmental budgetary issues.
    Is that worse than medical care based on the individual's ability to pay?

    In the 60s, government funded 70% of basic medical research - currently they fund less than half.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    37,054
    Thanks
    7583

    From
    Shady Dale, Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    We have recompensed that company at least 3xs already for those costs.

    How many more times would you like to give them money they have no right to?
    PROVE THIS STATEMENT. Give us links that back this up. Do not run from it. Show us that you know what you are talking about and let us see THIS company has received 3 times the costs already or the board will know that this was just another ignorant post.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 22nd March 2016, 07:41 PM
  2. Color-Blindness Is Counterproductive
    By Babba in forum Racism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th September 2015, 06:07 AM
  3. Middle class homeowners priced out of the market
    By bajisima in forum Economics
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 11th April 2014, 07:31 AM
  4. Moral Blindness?
    By conservative in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th November 2007, 02:28 AM
  5. Privatized Veggies priced out of schools
    By Idletime in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 30th August 2007, 12:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed