The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[B-Large]

Just a thought. If we go single payer how many people will drop out of the work force because they don't have to work to have "affordable" insurance. How many people hold out until 65 just for Medicare?

 

People still have rent, food, utilities, car payment/ repairs, etc. I don't think universal coverage would change that too much, plus in theory their tax burden would be higher, so less net income.

[Observer]

 

Only a dumb ass would throw out an arbitrary figure without sufficient research behind making such a projection.

 

What are you saying here? I don't follow.

[DC Tom]

 

Some people complain about the time it takes to get a patent. Some people complain about the time it takes a patent to expire.

 

"I don't know how much it should be reduced just that it should be." Bernie couldn't have said it better.

 

In the '20s and '30s, Congress passed a law concerning aeronautics patents: you couldn't prevent anyone else from using it. The users would have to pay you a license to use it, of course...but you couldn't forbid it. The ultimate result was increased innovation and decreased price as it decoupled invention from production.

 

There's better, more creative ways to address the issue than simply playing class warfare by demonizing the drug companies and patent process.

[Observer]

 

In the '20s and '30s, Congress passed a law concerning aeronautics patents: you couldn't prevent anyone else from using it. The users would have to pay you a license to use it, of course...but you couldn't forbid it. The ultimate result was increased innovation and decreased price as it decoupled invention from production.

 

There's better, more creative ways to address the issue than simply playing class warfare by demonizing the drug companies and patent process.

 

Compulsory licensing in one form or another exists in many countries. India uses it for drugs. Europe has some version of it for telecommunications.

 

As the country doing most of the R&D, the US has always resisted it (your contrary example notwithstanding).

Edited May 7, 2016 by Observer

[Magox]

 

What are you saying here? I don't follow.

 

I think it's pretty clear, what I'm saying is that I don't subscribe to hurling out arbitrary figures.

 

Patents for the drug makers are 20 years, after they go through all the red tape with the US Food & Drug administration they have about 12-15 years. This is what we do know.

 

What we also know is that Big Pharma has one of the largest profit margins in the U.S, despite their huge costs in R&D and advertising.

 

This tells me that there is some slack in reducing the time period drug makers have with their patents without taking away their R&D capabilities. Health Insurers get vilified yet their profit margin is around 5%, Big Pharma is close to quadruple that.

 

I'm not talking about some sort of socialist scheme here where the government should try to push for price controls or to punish them for their large profits, I love large profits. What I'm saying is that a significant way to push down drug costs is to lessen the period for patents, which would lead to Generic makers entering into the equation much quicker than they are today.

 

 

Another problem is that there aren't that many Generic drug makers and the ones that are there typically engage in the "pay for delay" deals struck with Big Pharma.

 

Big Pharma pays off the generics in many cases to delay their potential entry into the market so that they could continue to monopolize the drug market with the drug in question. They say it's more of a legal settlement issue, due to the patent challenges that the generic makers slap on Big pharma. Either way, the crux of it all are the patent lengths.

 

It's crystal clear to me that if there are some meaningful reforms on drug patents you could see more generic makers entering into the equation due to better market conditions, which would lead to lower drug prices with a negligible effect on R&D, while still maintaining huge profit margins.

There's better, more creative ways to address the issue than simply playing class warfare by demonizing the drug companies and patent process.

 

The bottom line is allowing A) generic drug makers into the process sooner than they have been and B) increasing competition among generic makers.

 

If there is a more "creative" way to address and achieve this then by all means I'd be for it.

[Nanker]

Magox, you don't know what your are talking about. Let me leave it at that.

[Magox]

You're going to have to do better than that, Nanker

[Magox]

Here

 

here

 

here

 

and here

 

Pay for Delay

 

Studies showing that it adds billions of dollars to consumers

 

and more

 

As far as profit margins are concerned, Pharmaceuticals are right there near the top.

 

My arguments are sound and backed with data.

[Nanker]

I don't care to get into a jousting match with you on this subject. But I will respond to at least one of your linked articles.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pharma.htm

 

Can you tell us how long the patent life remains in place after FDA approval? If a drug was discovered and patented, then run through Phase II and III clinical trials. On average how much of the 17 year patent life remains?

 

How many drugs are brought through Phase II trials and abandoned because the FDA didn't approve or their own trials failed to show a superior result to another treatment?

 

If "during the patent period the company has a protected monopoly and hence does not face competition" is true, why did Bayer bother to develop and produce Levitra and Eli Lilly make Cialis, when the patent on Viagra was still in place? Huh? They're different compounds that address the same issue.

 

"Pharmaceutical companies characterize price controls in Canada as free riding. These price controls are free riding only in a special sense. They do not result in higher prices in the U.S. because those prices are not cost-driven. The Canadian price controls are only free-riding in that they reduce the bonanaza that pharmaceutical companies are pursuing to get the patent, and hence reduce the the resources pharmaceutical companies are willing to devote to the research and thus could slow the development of new remedies to the world's ailments. "

 

Nice to know these researchers think that US prices are not cost-driven when they bear nearly the full cost of R&D.

Their bias is clearly revealed in the next sentence where they say price restrictions in other countries only reduce the bonanza to pharmas. The rest of their run-on sentence is drivel and reminiscent of a drunken rant along by yours truly. But it does illustrate the stance of the generic manufacturers. They're the jackals of that industry. They do no R&D and seek their fortune by capitalizing on the intellectual efforts of others who have spent billions of dollars and years of work to research, discover, develop, and test products across the globe. They devote no resources to discovery. They bring no new medicines to the world.

 

Treatment of diseases in humans is not a simple matter. It's not a one size fits all. What works for one group of people might not at all for another - or worse yet could be harmful to them. So companies develop similar medicines for the same ailments. That's competition. They race to get approvals, because of a basic marketing principle - "First to Market!" Positioning as #1 is huge in any industry. "Me too" usually doesn't fare as well in the market - hence the B2C advertising. It's called "Awareness".

[Observer]

I don't care to get into a jousting match with you on this subject. But I will respond to at least one of your linked articles.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pharma.htm

 

Can you tell us how long the patent life remains in place after FDA approval? If a drug was discovered and patented, then run through Phase II and III clinical trials. On average how much of the 17 year patent life remains?

 

 

Just hopping in on this one point. The patent term is 20 years from the date applied for and a bio patent's term gets extended for delays in the FDA approval process using something called patent term extension.

 

To Magox's point, I want the drug companies to have high margins. They take the biggest risks in R&D.

[Magox]

The answer is on average between 12-15 years.

 

Second point, I understand very well that the cost of R&D includes all the failures that go through their pipeline.

 

The problem here Nanker is that many people are so programmed to go against anything that sounds counter to free markets, Conservatism etc that there is an immediate assumption that the person making the argument against your position must be of some liberal bent or what not.

 

I think I've shown myself here over the years that I am a huge proponent of the free markets and many economic Conservative ideals, I would think that I have the benefit of the doubt that I'm not taking a position that unfairly demonizes any industry as you alluded to.

 

I love big profits, my argument isn't that since they have big profits lets go ahead and even out the playing field somehow. If you guys had been paying attention to my argument its that the Patent lengths do increase the price of drugs and they do discourage the entrance of new Generic makers.

 

These are undeniable facts, not opinion but facts.

 

There is a very sound argument to be made that the way the patent system is structured is not what a healthy free market should look like. You have Drug makers that are monopolizing markets and paying off generic producers to push out their generics or drop their patent lawsuits so that they can continue to profit at the expense of thousands of consumers. That in my view is an abuse of the free markets.

 

If there was a tight or even average profit margin of other fortune 500 companies, then I'd say "you know what, there really isn't too much slack and if you lessen their patent lengths, it will most likely come at the expense of R&D". But that's not the case. After their massive R&D and advertising budgets they still have these gains, which is at the top of just about any sector in the US aside from the financials.

 

What if the patent period was 25 years, I have little doubt that you would still be making the same argument and siding with the pharmaceutical companies. Why? Because many people are programmed to automatically defend anything that appears contrary to their preferred orthodoxy.

 

I look at this, put the factual research together and conclude that the existing patent system we have runs counter to what a proper free market should look like and that some of these companies are trying to buy additional time by paying off Generic producers to gain even more profits at the expense of consumers.

 

I love free markets, I love huge profits but what I don't like are rigged markets. This is a rigged market.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Magox

[FireChan]

The answer is on average between 12-15 years.

 

Second point, I understand very well that the cost of R&D includes all the failures that go through their pipeline.

 

The problem here Nanker is that many people are so programmed to go against anything that sounds counter to free markets, Conservatism etc that there is an immediate assumption that the person making the argument against your position must be of some liberal bent or what not.

 

I think I've shown myself here over the years that I am a huge proponent of the free markets and many economic Conservative ideals, I would think that I have the benefit of the doubt that I'm not taking a position that unfairly demonizes any industry as you alluded to.

 

I love big profits, my argument isn't that since they have big profits lets go ahead and even out the playing field somehow. If you guys had been paying attention to my argument its that the Patent lengths do increase the price of drugs and they do discourage the entrance of new Generic makers.

 

These are undeniable facts, not opinion but facts.

 

There is a very sound argument to be made that the way the patent system is structured is not what a healthy free market should look like. You have Drug makers that are monopolizing markets and paying off generic producers to push out their generics or drop their patent lawsuits so that they can continue to profit at the expense of thousands of consumers. That in my view is an abuse of the free markets.

 

If there was a tight or even average profit margin of other fortune 500 companies, then I'd say "you know what, there really isn't too much slack and if you lessen their patent lengths, it will most likely come at the expense of R&D". But that's not the case. After their massive R&D and advertising budgets they still have these gains, which is at the top of just about any sector in the US aside from the financials.

 

What if the patent period was 25 years, I have little doubt that you would still be making the same argument and siding with the pharmaceutical companies. Why? Because many people are programmed to automatically defend anything that appears contrary to their preferred orthodoxy.

 

I look at this, put the factual research together and conclude that the existing patent system we have runs counter to what a proper free market should look like and that some of these companies are trying to buy additional time by paying off Generic producers to gain even more profits at the expense of consumers.

 

I love free markets, I love huge profits but what I don't like are rigged markets. This is a rigged market.

Your problem is that you are implicitly condoning the fixed, not free, market that Europe and other countries maintain. You say you're for free markets, why not destroy those fixed prices first?

[Magox]

Your problem is that you are implicitly condoning the fixed, not free, market that Europe and other countries maintain. You say you're for free markets, why not destroy those fixed prices first?

 

Tell me how I'm condoning the fixed markets? Specifics please

[Nanker]

Magox, let me distill this to what I regard as the essence of the argument. If you reduce the patent period - what affect do you honestly believe that would have on the price of new drugs? You think they'll stay the same, go down, or go up?

[keepthefaith]

Magox, let me distill this to what I regard as the essence of the argument. If you reduce the patent period - what affect do you honestly believe that would have on the price of new drugs? You think they'll stay the same, go down, or go up?

They'll go up and companies will be less willing to invest R&D money in some cases but this is not an argument to leave things the way they are.

 

Doctors over medicating our society are also part of the problem.

[FireChan]

 

Tell me how I'm condoning the fixed markets? Specifics please

By virtue of not attempting to address them. You want us to pay for the rest of the world. Homie don't play that.

[Doc]

They'll go up and companies will be less willing to invest R&D money in some cases but this is not an argument to leave things the way they are.

 

Doctors over medicating our society are Patients wanting an easy fix through medications is also part of the problem.

 

Fixed it for you.

[keepthefaith]

 

Fixed it for you.

I'll go with both Doctors and Patients over medicating and patients ultimately being responsible for their own health or lack thereof.

[Doc]

I'll go with both Doctors and Patients over medicating and patients ultimately being responsible for their own health or lack thereof.

 

Fair enough.

[Magox]

By virtue of not attempting to address them. You want us to pay for the rest of the world. Homie don't play that.

 

In other words, you just made it up. Out of curiosity how would you have them pay for the R&D performed by American pharmaceuticals?

Magox, let me distill this to what I regard as the essence of the argument. If you reduce the patent period - what affect do you honestly believe that would have on the price of new drugs? You think they'll stay the same, go down, or go up?

 

It is quite possible that within the patent period they would go up. What is certain is that when the patent period ends, the generic makers come in and they drop by 50-60%.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Magox