On Nov 4, 7:37*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message
" wrote:
This isoneof thestupidistthingstheresidentcommiehas posted
yet.

Ourresident"stupidist" strikes again, and while trying to insult someone
who's simply explaining why a constant diet of red herrings and bad rhetoric
is bad for the mind. *It boggles that same mind in this case because KD's
taken a seriously ANTI-communist stance, saying that all of us don't need to
subsidize the creation of new drugs that would have no benefit for them.

Let's stick to the facts. What was claimed was that profits from
existing
products do not routinely fund the development of new products. That
is
indeed stupid as even a kid running a lemonade stand knows. Do you
disagree?




It's Trader's bizarre fear of all Big Bad Government regulation of business,
in this case the imaginary Big Bad Price Controls, which are non-existent in
your example.

It has nothing whatever to do with that. It's simple economics 101,
which
you can't grasp.




Deciding you won't buy a drug on behalf of your insured if
you don't get a good price is as simple a free market concept as you can
find. Somehow, we've gotten so used to having pre-written, non-negotiable
contracts shoved down our throats by cable companies, phone companies and
others every day that the thought of someone saying "wait, we don't like
your terms, let's come to new ones" shocks some people.

Of course none of that has anything to do with profits from current
products funding the development of new ones. Amazing how you
can spew forth unrelated nonsense.




*The drug companies aren't being forced at gunpoint to sell drugs cheaper
than it costs them to make them anymore than banks were forced to make so
many bad loans via CRA that it collapsed the economy.

I never said they were.




*It's just part of the
"All Government is Bad" mythology some people * As you pointed out, they
willingly give high discounts to Europe not out of altruism, but because
they are STILL MAKING MONEY! *Just not as much as they are by gouging
American customers.


Uh huh. But if the American customers were not paying those higher
prices, the whole picture obviously changes. IF everyone were to pay
the same price, then the world pricing outside the USA would have
to rise.



(-: *It sounds to me like some of KD's detractors don't
understand marginal costs and how Big Pharma can deeply discount its often
horribly inflated end-customer pricing and still make a buck. *It's easy
when the highest price you charge is stratospheric. *Coming down to sea
level still generates a profit for them, albeit a smalloneper unit sale.

The reality is that KD doesn't understand that profits from current
products have always been a major source of funding for the
development of new products. Simple yes or no question, is
it true or not?



Give Trader a chance and he can connect any set of unrelated dots by using
ink made from the dozens of decayed red herrings in his well-stocked and
very stinky fish tank.

Me? Go back and read the crap you just posted. You've dragged in
cable and phone contracts into a discussion about new products
being funded by profits. Good grief! Stick to the topic.



*When that fails, he'll reach for the poison puffer
fish and call you acommie, a socialist, a fu&wit or whatever the "epithet
of the day" happens to be.


Those fit you nicely.




To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand)

I've never seen re-explanation in simpler terms ever provoke the "dawn of
comprehension" in a Trader discussion. *He just made the same mistake with
"stupidist" and clearly doesn't learn from the past. *I'd feel badly (sic)
for him, but part of the reason most people come to the web is to learn
something.

You're the idiot that told us that wealth can only be measured by
selling
everything, ie if I own 1000 shares of MSFT and 100 ounces of gold,
my wealth cannot be measured. That if the price of MSFT goes up
in my portfolio, that it has not increased my wealth. And some
bizarre
stock market example that shows you don't have a clue about that
either.




manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time
-- i.e., they sell it for a lower price than it normally is sold for
-- but in doing so they actually make more money

This is supported by the incredibly large and complex "free sample" network
of "detail men" from the big Pharma houses. *They give away diabetes meters
free to sell test strips at a $1+ each. *That's a totally outrageous cost
for something I once read costs well under 1 cent to produce.

Should Big Pharma make aonethousand percent profit on what is for many a
medical necessity? *It doesn't sit well with me but it does confirm the "we
don't want cures, we want something customers have no choice about buying
for whatever outrageous price we can charge" policy of Big Pharma. *Again,
it's so odd that even with multiple strip manufacturers, there isn't very
much price difference at all between strip makers.

That's exactly what you;d expect in a market with perfect
compettition.
Prices reach a market equilibrium point where supply meets demand.
Once again, your ignorance of economics 101 is remarkable. What
everyone who has taken a course in economics knows is that what
you see as price fixing is in fact what you get in free markets.


*It's a gentlemen's
agreement between the makers of that product to keep the profits beyond
reasonable and into the stratospheric.

Of course if you bothered with even the most basic facts, you'd know
the reality is that if you look at drug industry profits they are
within the norm of other industries, about 20%. Compare that to say
Apple, at 25%. Stratospheric? LOL




*Eventually the profit motive will
have to be removed from medical care because it's in so severe a conflict
with the goal of making people well.



"For the general welfare" gives Congress the power to simply take that
business away from all of the gougers and bring it under Medicare.

And that's why you're the resident commie.




*It's
going to end up happening because it's the only way to keep health care
costs down. *Eliminating the collusion between manufacturers and making the
creation of drugs a governmental function, not a private industryone, could
provide enormous health care cost savings. *It will take a serious retooling
of people's thinking and will involve a ferocious battle against those who
would be losing all the "easy money" that can be made selling drugs, licit
and illicit.


What's even more interesting about the crocodile tears Big Pharma cries
about R&D costs is that much of the research that leads to blockbuster drugs
is done at NIH and paid for by everyone's tax dollars. *I say if they keep
crying much longer, the Feds should restructurethingsso that NIH does ALL
the research. *Then, Big Pharma would get a license to produce the drugs NIH
and others develop after competitive bidding against other manufacturers.
That would have the added benefit of putting the "blockbuster" mentality to
pasture where it belongs.

For someone who can't grasp the most basic economic concepts you
sure have a vivid imagination about how to transform the economy.




As the drug companies have proven by cutting back on essential medicines for
which the profit is too small, they have a conflict of interest. *Curing and
treating disease should be the primary motive of drug development. *The "for
profit" mode means that the preference is for high-priced "blockbuster"
drugs for long term care, not cures or lower-priced drugs that would bring
health care costs down for everyone. *Our health care costs are skyrocketing
because it makes Big Pharma richer. *Study after study shows that many of
the newer drugs cost 4 to 10 times as much as earlier versions, but never
deliver 4 to 10 times the therapeutic values.

--
Bobby G.

Gee, if they are making such extraordinary profits, why have not all
the
drug company stocks gone through the roof? Hmmm? If even half of
what you claim is true, they would be priced like the internet stocks
were
in 1999. The fact that they are not is perhaps the best evidence that
you're clueless, all commie emotion and no facts.