Skip to comments.Americans betrayed by Democratic senators with surprise amendment that protects Big Pharma monopoly
Posted on 05/08/2007 9:45:03 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
Consumers expecting a miracle in the Senate that would end Big Pharma's monopoly and the FDA-enforced drug racket now operating in the United States will be sorely disappointed by yesterday's events. Fifteen Democratic senators (led by Sen. Edward Kennedy) abandoned consumer interests and joined a Republican-organized amendment that would protect Big Pharma's stranglehold over U.S. consumers by blocking the importation of prescription drugs from other countries...
(Excerpt) Read more at newstarget.com ...
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...
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.
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."
BTW, I do agree that it’s partially not fair that other countries’ citizens pay much less for their meds. Then again, they don’t have the sue-happy environment, byzanine FDA, and all the other related hurdles of doing biz in the US.
The answer includes the following: (1) Accept that new drugs are risky, and lessen the massive regulatory burden on bringing them to market. (2) Provide protection against insanely huge lawsuits barring intentional acts, gross (and I mean GROSS) negligence, etc.
That, or accept the cost of massive regulation, effective testing and lawsuits.
Here is what the FDA has to say about counterfeit drugs: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/qa.html Yes, they are going to be cheaper, but there is a good chance they either won’t help you or might actually hurt you.
One of the reasons for pricing differential between 1st and 3rd world countries is to reduce/prevent widespread patent violations and theft of intellectual property.
Those third world governments feel free to allow their corporations to violate US companies IP rights if the price is right. Differential pricing reduces the financial incentive to do so.
Sucks, but it’s the truth. Also, considering the contaminated wheat gluten coming out of China, do we really want them gearing up to produce counterfiet prescription drugs to sell to us when the border is thrown open.
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.
Now THAT I agree with! Well said.
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.
Marketing saves consumers money. How is Wal-Mart able to offer customers everyday low prices? Lots of marketing, advertising, and PR spend.
To make up the difference in what they lose from name brand products..they offer cheap products from China and other 3rd world countries?
Here's a solution to all the whiners: Start your own company and invent your own medications and then you can sell them for whatever price you like.
Patents are necessary. They are so fundamental that they are an actual enumerated power in the US Constitution.
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.
Compared to many other stores, Wal-Mart seems pretty light on the advertising. I only get Sunday ads for them about once a month instead of every week like other major (and not so major) stores in the area. They don't even seem to have that many commercials compared to other retailers.
I ask the same question once more: when Intel sells chips on the world market, it also has to keep its legal staff looking for patent violations. Its marketing situation is the same as pharma: it advertises to consumers, but sells indirectly ("Make sure your new Dell has Intel Inside..."). It does not use these factors as an excuse to charge Americans extra. Drug companies charge us more for one reason only - because they have had laws passed that force us to pay higher prices.
I'm sure Intel wishes it had such clout.
You are missing the point. Marketing saves money for consumers in th end.
The Democrats know it was all just empty retoric. Americans bare the brunt of the development of new drugs. Foreign government strong-arm drug companies into selling at much discounted rates. The drug companies view the R&D as sunk costs and several companies have similar drugs, so the companies usually cave.
However, what floats the R&D budgets of companies is the US market. Like it or not, if we re-import drugs at a lower price, the R&D for new drugs companies will drop. We’ll get current drugs cheaply and then no new drugs ever ever ever.
Hmmm, I think that 99% of Americans would recognize the Wal-Mart smiley-face logo. Their marketing is very effective, regardless of whether they buy ads in your paper or on TV.
Marketing is not the same as advertising.