I realize that costs are at a markup, but I was at the doctor today and had to get him to write a prescription from my other doctor because otherwise we'd have to pay $200 out-of-pocket.

We said "$200 for it....... has to make you wonder how much it costs to make."

Without blinking an eye, the doctor says "pennies" and doesn't even look up from what he was doing.

PENNIES!!!!!

I know it's not something he has any say in and I appreciate him being honest, but drug companies are screwing us THAT MUCH?!

Are all drugs like that?

Makes you wonder how many millions of people could get the help and medication they need if drug companies were just ok with even making a reasonable profit instead of an insane one.

Actually, he said insurance companies control the cost, which I didn't really understand how, unless they're paying off the drug companies so people can't afford it and need insurance.

(07-07-2017, 01:22 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I realize that costs are at a markup, but I was at the doctor today and had to get him to write a prescription from my other doctor because otherwise we'd have to pay $200 out-of-pocket.

We said "$200 for it....... has to make you wonder how much it costs to make."

Without blinking an eye, the doctor says "pennies" and doesn't even look up from what he was doing.

PENNIES!!!!!

I know it's not something he has any say in and I appreciate him being honest, but drug companies are screwing us THAT MUCH?!

Are all drugs like that?

Makes you wonder how many millions of people could get the help and medication they need if drug companies were just ok with even making a reasonable profit instead of an insane one.

Actually, he said insurance companies control the cost, which I didn't really understand how, unless they're paying off the drug companies so people can't afford it and need insurance.

What are you a socialist? You sound like Bernie Sanders. Next you'll be burning the flag.

Make that money big pharma! USA!USA!USA!

You'd think trump would have taken care of that for you by now brad. What's he been doing? Playing golf on your dime?

(07-07-2017, 01:22 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I realize that costs are at a markup, but I was at the doctor today and had to get him to write a prescription from my other doctor because otherwise we'd have to pay $200 out-of-pocket.

We said "$200 for it....... has to make you wonder how much it costs to make."

Without blinking an eye, the doctor says "pennies" and doesn't even look up from what he was doing.

PENNIES!!!!!

I know it's not something he has any say in and I appreciate him being honest, but drug companies are screwing us THAT MUCH?!

Are all drugs like that?

Makes you wonder how many millions of people could get the help and medication they need if drug companies were just ok with even making a reasonable profit instead of an insane one.

Actually, he said insurance companies control the cost, which I didn't really understand how, unless they're paying off the drug companies so people can't afford it and need insurance.

Dude....its called capitalism. 

How much do you think that iPhone in your pocket costs to make? Probably around $150 and they retail for around $650. 

(07-07-2017, 02:26 PM)xxlt Wrote: What are you a socialist? You sound like Bernie Sanders. Next you'll be burning the flag.

Make that money big pharma! USA!USA!USA!

I'm all for making money and profits, but I had no idea that the markup was this bad.

(07-07-2017, 03:18 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: You'd think trump would have taken care of that for you by now brad.  What's he been doing?   Playing golf on your dime?

Trump hasn't even been in office 6 months and you're blasting him for this.

He's working on it and Obama couldn't even get a good system in place in 8 years in office.

(07-10-2017, 11:22 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Dude....its called capitalism. 

How much do you think that iPhone in your pocket costs to make? Probably around $150 and they retail for around $650. 

I know but I didn't think it was that ridiculous of a markup on drugs.  

You'd think that a company would just sell for half the price or even a quarter of the price and sell so many more that they'd destroy the competition.

There is corruption, bribery/lobbying government and monopolies at play, but the cost of drug Z has to cover the loses on drug A through Y that cost tons of money to research, develop and test but never made it to the market. The few drugs that make it to market may cost pennies to manufacture, but there's also the $10 of millions and years of work to even get that one medicine to even exist.

You can thank Pharma Bro for your mark up.  Isn't he so likeable?

(07-10-2017, 02:50 PM)6andcounting Wrote: There is corruption, bribery/lobbying government and monopolies at play, but the cost of drug Z has to cover the loses on drug A through Y that cost tons of money to research, develop and test but never made it to the market. The few drugs that make it to market may cost pennies to manufacture, but there's also the $10 of millions and years of work to even get that one medicine to even exist.

This. Without an operating profit to reinvest in to new drugs pharmaceutical companies wither and die.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-10-2017, 04:15 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: This.  Without an operating profit to reinvest in to new drugs pharmaceutical companies wither and die.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, they write off failed drugs and use that to their advantage. Merck's net sales last year were 39.5B with 25.2B gross profit. They only spent 10B of that on research, I don't think they are going out of business anytime soon doing research. They are only one of the big companies gouging U.S. consumers on drugs. If you look at pharmaceutical sales outside the U.S. the same pills cost far less. The reason is pretty simple, they do it because they can get away with it.

(07-10-2017, 04:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not really, they write off failed drugs and use that to their advantage. Merck's net sales last year were 39.5B with 25.2B gross profit. They only spent 10B of that on research, I don't think they are going out of business anytime soon doing research. They are only one of the big companies gouging U.S. consumers on drugs. If you look at pharmaceutical sales outside the U.S. the same pills cost far less. The reason is pretty simple, they do it because they can get away with it.

Spot on. Also don't forget a lot of the R&D is done by publicly funded universities which big pharma comes in a swoops up at discount rates because the edu system is so poorly funded.

And brad. Don't you think tramp would have been able to do more if he was in the Oval Office as promised rather than shooting triple digits tearing up his tracks?

(07-10-2017, 04:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not really, they write off failed drugs and use that to their advantage. Merck's net sales last year were 39.5B with 25.2B gross profit. They only spent 10B of that on research, I don't think they are going out of business anytime soon doing research. They are only one of the big companies gouging U.S. consumers on drugs. If you look at pharmaceutical sales outside the U.S. the same pills cost far less. The reason is pretty simple, they do it because they can get away with it.

And if Merck ceases to bring new products to market via research or acquisition then Merck will eventually die after all of its products go generic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

R & D and health insurance.

The two reasons drugs are marked up so much.

(07-10-2017, 05:04 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: And if Merck ceases to bring new products to market via research or acquisition then Merck will eventually die after all of its products go generic.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, but every company that isn't doing R&D in almost every industry will die after they get knocked off. They aren't special, but are allowed to price gouge people when they have no competition on life saving medications.

(07-10-2017, 05:54 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sure, but every company that isn't doing R&D will die after they get knocked off there is nothing unique to drug companies. They aren't special, but are allowed to price gouge people when they have no competition on life saving medications.

Except that FDA is pushing generics to the market faster. For a drug company the patent starts as soon the drug is designed, not when it's launched. That puts pressure on the maker to recover the costs and find the next thing to develop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-10-2017, 05:57 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Except that FDA is pushing generics to the market faster.  For a drug company the patent starts as soon the drug is designed, not when it's launched.  That puts pressure on the maker to recover the costs and find the next thing to develop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, they get 12 years of market exclusivity on average where they are legally allowed to price gouge on life saving products, but not everywhere only in the U.S. . I think your missing the point. If they need to recoup all that money, why do drugs cost x percent more in the U.S. ? They will blame regulators but many believe it is because they can get away with it. In other countries, especially those that use state based healthcare systems, they are called out on it and price them more reasonably.

Well, with all the life saving magic that the drug manufacturers produce, one would think that the United States would rank higher than 26th, in terms of life expectancy, compared to the rest of the world.

I mean, I want everyone to make a profit, just not that much of a profit off of me...

(07-10-2017, 06:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: Right, they get 12 years of market exclusivity on average where they are legally allowed to price gouge on life saving products, but not everywhere only in the U.S. . I think your missing the point. If they need to recoup all that money, why do drugs cost x percent more in the U.S. ? They will blame regulators but many believe it is because they can get away with it. In other countries, especially those that use state based healthcare systems, they are called out on it and price them more reasonably.

I am not missing the point.  I think you're trying to make a different point.  The fail ratio of drugs developed and not approved is very high.  It costs millions of dollars to advance a drug through each step of the clinical process.  That money is gone if the product is not approved.  Not to mention reps will leave if they don't see a pipeline of products to sell.  They are not price gouging, they are charging what they market will allow them too.  Its up to the market to correct it.  I don't deny prices are high and artificailly inflated somewhat.

If faced with a life threatening illness you want to take the drug or complain about the price?

(07-10-2017, 07:59 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: I am not missing the point.  I think you're trying to make a different point.  The fail ratio of drugs developed and not approved is very high.  It costs millions of dollars to advance a drug through each step of the clinical process.  That money is gone if the product is not approved.  Not to mention reps will leave if they don't see a pipeline of products to sell.  They are not price gouging, they are charging what they market will allow them too.  Its up to the market to correct it.  I don't deny prices are high and artificailly inflated somewhat.

If faced with a life threatening illness you want to take the drug or complain about the price?

But, isn't that why the FDA has relaxed, and done away with some previous regulations?  I mean, not only do we have drugs commercials on TV, begging the question for prospective consumers, but they almost always have a long list of undesirable side effects.  What's up with that?  C'mon, those drug manufacturers are making some serious bank.

How much of that cost to consumers would be alleviated, if the FDA prohibited mass media advertising?  What if we went back to just marketing to Doctors, and let them decide if a product is worthy to push onto patients?

(07-10-2017, 08:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, isn't that why the FDA has relaxed, and done away with some previous regulations?  I mean, not only do we have drugs commercials on TV, begging the question for prospective consumers, but they almost always have a long list of undesirable side effects.  What's up with that?  C'mon, those drug manufacturers are making some serious bank.

How much of that cost to consumers would be alleviated, if the FDA prohibited mass media advertising?  What if we went back to just marketing to Doctors, and let them decide if a product is worthy to push onto patients?

To a point, yes. The FDA is trying to get branded meds to the market faster too. Especially orphan drugs, cancer drugs etc.

The advertising is a separate animal. Designed to get patients to the dr asking for the product or to make them aware of a treatment when one may not have existed. It's all about share of voice. Pharma companies got together to minimize the pens, pads and other gifts given out. Prices didn't go down then.

Drug companies are making jack, I'm not saying they aren't. They are for profit companies with shareholders to answer to. Check out income statements from insurance companies too. The system is broken, no doubt.

But there's more to it than just a blanket statement of high drug costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-10-2017, 04:53 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: And brad. Don't you think tramp would have been able to do more if he was in the Oval Office as promised rather than shooting triple digits tearing up his tracks?

In the same time frame, Obama was out of the country NINE times apologizing for "America's arrogance," and Trump has played golf, yes, but all of his haters ignore the fact that a lot of times he has been building relations, like when he was golfing with the Japanese Prime Minister.

Trump's critics are ignoring his actions as President and criticizing him for playing golf instead of just living their lives and considering all of the good Trump has done and is working on.