Pharmaceuticals only have your best interests at heart

[Pirian]

He's too committed to back out now; double down!

[thetruepandagod]

well said, the government must act as rulemaker and umpire for capitalism to function and the protection of property rights, including intellectual property, must be foremost among their duties. that said the FDA is a cumbersome and intrusive body with a penchant for corporatism, monopoly enforcement, and injurious paternalism resulting in everyone from Forbes to fivethirtyeight calling for reformation

the issue in this particular case is not that the drug in question is a jack3d up generic granted a government enforced monopoly (exclusivity rights for new drugs end after 20 years, though pharmaceutical companies jump through hoops to extend their patents), but rather that the demand for it is so minuscule (only 2000 Americans use this drug yearly) it is not profitable for another pharmaceutical corporation to undergo generic manufacturing for sake of undercutting prices and grabbing market share, as we would see in other markets where a price gauge of this nature occurred

I have never been so triggered in my life.

[Thunder]

That is a form of government regulation.

ok, come on, you did not interpret what I was saying as getting rid of everything government related.

Yeah, sounds like lobbyist should be better...regulated.

Real simple. That kind of lobbying only exists because the government has power in that area. If their hands were tied with legislation they could not be lobbied. Greater regulation = greater government power? That literally means lobbying will be more powerful

Thunder what in the hell are you even talking about dude....

Tbh, I thought it was pretty clear. All you've said is "that's stupid". And I'm pretty sure most of you would agree with me if it wasn't for people thinking about some strawman where the deregulation of pharma means down with courts or something. You haven't said how regulation helps - only that under regulation a lot of drugs are easily passed and that is somehow supposed to refute one of my points that lobbying has a hand in ending the R/D of certain drugs, limiting competition.

[Waraji]

This thread is derail hell, can't even read this shit anymore.

That moment you remind someone to read the thread title and they sit there wondering wtf they're actually reading.

Sorta related, sorta borderline 2 Tylenols from getting its own thread.

r u kidding

This is about government in the healthcare sector. That's pretty relevant to the election. Maybe this'll calm you down: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/s...74772275408896

That's pretty funny. If only real issues could get tackled this easily. "The rent is too damn high. Tomorrow I will release a plan to lower it -W"

[Roranora]

That's pretty funny. If only real issues could get tackled this easily. "The rent is too damn high. Tomorrow I will release a plan to lower it -W"

lol, I was gonna say wtf exactly is Hilldog's plan

[Pirian]

ok, come on, you did not interpret what I was saying as getting rid of everything government related.

You want courts and justices to hold up property rights, but they can't do that without laws and that is regulation. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Real simple. That kind of lobbying only exists because the government has power in that area. If their hands were tied with legislation they could not be lobbied. Greater regulation = greater government power? That literally means lobbying will be more powerful

Clearly it is not real simple. Without a government regulator then we end up in an Upton Sinclair'esk state where the quality control is left up to the free market and thus there is no quality control. We have already proven this with history, and you know what they say about those that don't learn from history. Does the current system stifle innovation insofar as making it very difficult for a small startup in the drug industry? Most certainly, but the alternative is worse. A much better solution is to better police lobbying and the congressmen that stand to benefit from said lobbying.

[Churchill]

Well I know why Doxy was increased to 1800$. There's been a pretty big focus on getting rid of Malaria in the third world, what better way to make some cash off of that effort than by jacking up the price lol.

[Thunder]

You want courts and justices to hold up property rights, but they can't do that without laws and that is regulation. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

ugh... ok, sorry I wasn't more specific? You've got to admit this is some strong semantical BS holding me up to the extent of the meaning of regulation when I said regulation in pharma >.>

Clearly it is not real simple. Without a government regulator then we end up in an Upton Sinclair'esk state where the quality control is left up to the free market and thus there is no quality control. We have already proven this with history, and you know what they say about those that don't learn from history. Does the current system stifle innovation insofar as making it very difficult for a small startup in the drug industry? Most certainly, but the alternative is worse. A much better solution is to better police lobbying and the congressmen that stand to benefit from said lobbying.

Well, yeah, that's kind of the discussion that needs to happen - is it better to have a wild wild west where quality control is left up to the free market? Which doesn't mean ZERO quality control. Bad law firms go out of business. Bad name brands go out of business. Plenty of places where there is no quality control regulates itself very well over time. I'm not so sure we can start with the premise that, "it's certainly worse" and just assume it true.

That better policing sounds nice, where does it come from? Is the government going to police itself? Anyone who runs on some cycle of votes is prone to get lobbied, that's just the way it is. If you want to create a new industry that regulates the regulating of government then idk how happy I am with that idea.

[kuronosan]

ok, come on, you did not interpret what I was saying as getting rid of everything government related.




Real simple. That kind of lobbying only exists because the government has power in that area. If their hands were tied with legislation they could not be lobbied. Greater regulation = greater government power? That literally means lobbying will be more powerful


Tbh, I thought it was pretty clear. All you've said is "that's stupid". And I'm pretty sure most of you would agree with me if it wasn't for people thinking about some strawman where the deregulation of pharma means down with courts or something. You haven't said how regulation helps - only that under regulation a lot of drugs are easily passed and that is somehow supposed to refute one of my points that lobbying has a hand in ending the R/D of certain drugs, limiting competition.

Sorry, my time is rather limited when it comes to lengthy replies on my phone.

All you need to know is that I have a very good understanding of how pharmaceuticals work, and that there is a very good reason for strict regulation of medicines.

There are two loopholes that the industry has exploited to hell and back, and those loopholes are "proprietary blend" and "cost of production".

The cost of medication that is new absolutely should be pricey, as many of us in health care will tell you that older meds are probably just as effective at managing symptoms as newer ones. The issue is largely that there's no new money to be made off of cheap meds, so when assholes like Douche McBaggins jack up the price on meds they know people are going to need (and are not necessarily short in supply) they are indeed not sciencing and are being greedy dickfaces.

Now, the only reason regulation has led to corner cutting or gouging is because people don't like getting less milk from a fat cow. Do you really believe with an industry as profitable as pharmacy would benefit from less oversight, given that these are things you are giving family and friends to treat illness?

These aren't just bags of koolaid being dumped in water. These are chemicals and should be highly regulated. You cannot make some stupid claim that your drug is awesome and then not expect to face heavy scrutiny from the scientific community.

People like you are the reason idiots like Dr. Oz or Dr. Perlmutter can make such stupidly ridiculous claims about the efficacy of their treatments.

So yea, I'm all about reigning in irresponsible companies that buy up competition using government sanctions so they can gouge consumers/patients and then whine when the government calls them out.

That is the very backbone of capitalism: supply and demand. Like socialism, however, it never accounts for the human element of greed.

Hence why regulation is necessary. Without it, one greedy dick will always take more than he should and ruin it for everyone else. It's called bottlenecking. If you control the supply, you control the demand. That is not a free market.

And if you think pharm companies can buy lobbies but not courts, you are indeed an idiot.

[Thunder]

People like you are the reason idiots like Dr. Oz or Dr. Perlmutter can make such stupidly ridiculous claims about the efficacy of their treatments.

pls. Take your buttmad and point it at someone else lol, all we're doing is posting on BG among, basically, friends

I'm not at all involved in the legislation behind the regulation of big pharma. I just posted my very limited view of big pharma, specifically about people vilifying capitalism for this recent price gauge news, when the entire reason behind it is the government is allowing and protecting it... which is literally the opposite of capitalism

Cool explanation though. The Dr. Oz bit sold me - I don't like snake oils salesmen being better marketers than they are medical specialists while parading around as medical specialists. And the market did an awful job at regulating that itself. It'd look pretty ugly if there was a dr. oz version of pain killers, cancer treatment, etc.

[kuronosan]

No buttmad. Nice deflect, though.

[Sho]

I know nothing of the big pharma industry so I dodged that bullet, lol.

Ironically a friend of mine works in the industry as a spokeswoman and head of marketing teams for these companies so I could ask her opinion if you guys want... though I think the interest will go away soon.

[Thunder]

No buttmad. Nice deflect, though.

thx bro. It was needlessly hostile, is all. I wasn't trying to upset anyone. I could preface every statement with, "I'm not a part of this industry nor have I ever worked for this industry" but is that even necessary? Just explain your side of it and I'll listen. I'm not delusional or crazy - if you come at me with sound points I'll listen, promise.

I know nothing of the big pharma industry so I dodged that bullet, lol.

Ironically a friend of mine works in the industry as a spokeswoman for these companies so I could ask her opinion if you guys want... though I think the interest will go away soon.

I'd be interested even if it takes you a couple of days to get back

[Sho]

On it. I'll send a text message and throw some queries at her. If it matters, she's a former republican turned conservative democrat.

[Gredival]

Btw to the people saying this is capitalisms fault... (looking at you kuro) it isn't.

Capitalism wants nothing to do with the idea someone can buy the rights of a product and have the government enforce their exclusive right to price and sell it. It is the OPPOSITE of capitalism that causes something like this

Unfortunately, none of the candidates are strong on removing government oversight/control over these types of things so yep.

When an action is legal and profit maximizing, you can rest assured that it will happen regardless of the people it harms. This is a failure of governmental regulation, which is no surprise given how much more leverage pharmaceuticals have in the U.S. compared to other first world countries.

Total free market capitalism doesn't favor a patent system for drugs, but that's not the system anyone is arguing for here. Maybe drugs should be handled differently from the current patent system. But tossing the entirety of IP law cause of this is the equivalent of taking down Planned Parenthood over baby parts if those videos were actually real.

[Pirian]

ugh... ok, sorry I wasn't more specific? You've got to admit this is some strong semantical BS holding me up to the extent of the meaning of regulation when I said regulation in pharma >.>

Everything I said is directly related to pharma and and I was not making my argument a semantic one, and I don't know why you think it is. Every industry is regulated because history shows us they cannot regulate themselves. I'm sorry you feel otherwise but you are dead wrong, and I have history on my side for this.

Well, yeah, that's kind of the discussion that needs to happen - is it better to have a wild wild west where quality control is left up to the free market? Which doesn't mean ZERO quality control. Bad law firms go out of business. Bad name brands go out of business. Plenty of places where there is no quality control regulates itself very well over time. I'm not so sure we can start with the premise that, "it's certainly worse" and just assume it true.

Sorry, you're right, it's not zero quality control, it's quality control for the bottom line. This is what will happen: a few good companies will produce high quality drugs, and taking advantage of Economies of Scale, will steal all the drugs worth making and produce them at at a cost that doesn't make it worth it for a small startup. Once the competition has been eliminated them then the "quality" companies will slowly raise prices to the point just below where another companies can come in and compete. The few big drug companies will all collude together not to step on each others toes. Next, we will see counterfeit drugs become commonplace because there is no quality control, thus you will only be able to assure quality by buying directly from the company or from somebody endorsed by the company and that means they can further raise their price. We already see this in other countries that do not have quality government regulations (ie 3rd world countries) where the price of many drugs is prohibitively expensive to the majority of the population and the market is rampant with counterfeit drugs of questionable/non-existent efficacy.

Is that better than "most certainly worse"?

That better policing sounds nice, where does it come from? Is the government going to police itself? Anyone who runs on some cycle of votes is prone to get lobbied, that's just the way it is. If you want to create a new industry that regulates the regulating of government then idk how happy I am with that idea.

It comes from transparency within the government. A lot of this is allowed to happen because power has consolidated because of bad regulation enforcement/deregulation. The solution is to take money out of politics altogether; not turn it into a capitalistic free-for-all.

[6souls]

What also makes this case unique is that the guy in the middle of the scandal is being sued by the former companies he was involved with. He enters a company on good terms, guts them for millions, then moves onto the next.

[kuronosan]

Like... Most hedge funders?

[Waraji]

Damn, 2 Tylenol status real quick.

The guy in question here, he's a real fucking pill though. I mean this guy is such a blatant asshole, those tweets.

He enters a company on good terms, guts them for millions, then moves onto the next.

At least when Mitt Romney did it, he was smug about it, not an asshole.

CEO accused of price-gouging a drug also is a League of Legends team executive

Can't make this shit up.

[Anoat]

I sense a South Park episode in the making.