The Democrat Utopia

[Archy1221]

8 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

It is under patent protection……in the US. There are multiple versions available everywhere except here. The manufacturer sells it under a couple different names, much cheaper, in other countries.

 

So my next question is, why does the FDA allow them to be patent protected for such a long time? If you tell me so that the mfg can recoup their R&D costs, I’m going to call BS and we’ll be done.

 

Then I guess we are done unless you can tell me what the appropriate number of years of patent protection should be if you know what the current number is. 

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

8 hours ago, funhusker said:

Okay? Then use that one.

 

My point was; The people of this country have it pretty damn good. Yet, they still complain incessantly, with no apparent comprehension of what actual oppression looks like. There's a reason people from all around the world are kicking the door down to get in this country. Does that mean everything is perfect? No, and the Right could probably admit that a little more often. But, it would it also be nice to see the Left admit how beneficial this country is to her citizens from time to time.

[Redux]

9 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

It is under patent protection……in the US. There are multiple versions available everywhere except here. The manufacturer sells it under a couple different names, much cheaper, in other countries.

 

So my next question is, why does the FDA allow them to be patent protected for such a long time? If you tell me so that the mfg can recoup their R&D costs, I’m going to call BS and we’ll be done.

 

He thinks the fortunes they waste lobbying is just Big Pharma having their voice heard, he's not having an honest conversation about it.  Twice as much is spent on marketing than actual research.

[JJ Husker]

43 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Then I guess we are done unless you can tell me what the appropriate number of years of patent protection should be if you know what the current number is. 

 

 

Sounds good. Enjoy hawking your drugs and defending big pharma.

[Archy1221]

17 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Sounds good. Enjoy hawking your drugs and defending big pharma.

Appreciate it.  I will continue to saves lives, you do, well whatever it is you do.  

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Sounds good. Enjoy hawking your drugs and defending big pharma.

In case you were interested in furthering your knowledge level on the subject. 
 

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/frequently-asked-questions-patents-and-exclusivity

[JJ Husker]

9 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

90% of all Rx’s are filled generic.  One would think that if the FDA protects Pharmaceutical company profits, this number would be much much much much lower 

 

The % of Rx’s filled with generics indicates absolutely nothing.  New drugs are developed everyday. Patents and exclusivity fall by the wayside everyday. The thing to ask yourself is why does an entity (the FDA), whose primary concern should be protecting consumers, provide protections to big pharma by allowing 20 year patent protection and multiple options for exclusivity? The answer is because it allows them to gouge the US consumer. If the FDA wants to do something useful, maybe they should delve into the development and production costs and determine a maximum selling price.

 

Look at all the television advertising for all the new biologicals, as an example. Those drugs typically go for multiple thousands. Two doses of Humira, about $4500. One infusion of Entyvio about $24,000. Why? Because they have splashy ads and doctors to kick back to, not R&D costs. And the FDA protects them, not us (maybe your job?) every step of the way. The consumer is at the bottom of the list.

[Archy1221]

24 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

He thinks the fortunes they waste lobbying is just Big Pharma having their voice heard, he's not having an honest conversation about it.  Twice as much is spent on marketing than actual research.

I thought you were done talking about this?  BTW, have you gotten around to letting us all know which government officials and their spouses are making lots of money from “big Pharma”.   
 

Keep in mind, not a single Rx can be given to a patient without the express approval of a Prescribing Physician saying it is what they believe to be right for the patient.  

[JJ Husker]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

In case you were interested in furthering your knowledge level on the subject. 
 

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/frequently-asked-questions-patents-and-exclusivity

I’ve already looked at that exact info before. Nice job pretending you obviously have a deeper understanding, yet again. It’s okay, if you want to protect the status quo of your job. If I was employed by big pharma, I wouldn’t want anything to change either. Its a sweet deal for everyone except the consumer.

[Redux]

7 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The % of Rx’s filled with generics indicates absolutely nothing.  New drugs are developed everyday. Patents and exclusivity fall by the wayside everyday. The thing to ask yourself is why does an entity (the FDA), whose primary concern should be protecting consumers, provide protections to big pharma by allowing 20 year patent protection and multiple options for exclusivity? The answer is because it allows them to gouge the US consumer. If the FDA wants to do something useful, maybe they should delve into the development and production costs and determine a maximum selling price.

 

Look at all the television advertising for all the new biologicals, as an example. Those drugs typically go for multiple thousands. Two doses of Humira, about $4500. One infusion of Entyvio about $24,000. Why? Because they have splashy ads and doctors to kick back to, not R&D costs. And the FDA protects them, not us (maybe your job?) every step of the way. The consumer is at the bottom of the list.

 

Hey!  Drugs that cost pennies on the dollar to make NEED millions of dollars in shilling!  

 

And it's NEVER with ill intent

Meanwhile, at Phizer:

 

Quote

in 2009. Pfizer had a drug named Bextra. The drug was pulled off the market in 2005. However, a lawsuit filed against the company for wrongful marketing of the product was settled in 2009 and the company was asked by the court to pay a fine of US Dollar 2.3 Billion for ‘Fraudulent Marketing’.

 

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

provide protections to big pharma by allowing 20 year patent protection and multiple options for exclusivity?

How long does it take to bring a drug to market?  I’m hoping you understand that the 20 years is not from drug approval.
 

Television ads do not affect drug cost, please be more informed if you want to make accusations. 
 

The 80’s version of events between industry and Physician doesn’t exist anymore.  Your “kickback” statement doesn’t apply, unless you have information to share.  If cases like that present themselves, they are almost always prosecuted and the company’s heavily fined.   Pharmaceutical companies are probably the most regulated companies in the US and for good reason.  
 

No need to worry about my job, which I know is a load off your mind.  

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I’ve already looked at that exact info before. Nice job pretending you obviously have a deeper understanding, yet again. It’s okay, if you want to protect the status quo of your job. If I was employed by big pharma, I wouldn’t want anything to change either. Its a sweet deal for everyone except the consumer.

Yes, I do have a deeper understanding of this subject than you.  It’s not a bad thing as I wouldn’t expect you to understand it.  
If you have looked at it before then why don’t you speak to all the relevant information about the patent period instead of just spewing 20 yrs without context of what that means. 
 

And Why are you so concerned about my job?  You keep bringing it up

[Redux]

Lol can we clean this mess up Mods, I think the past couple pages need a new thread

[Archy1221]

27 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Hey!  Drugs that cost pennies on the dollar to make NEED millions of dollars in shilling!  

 

And it's NEVER with ill intent

Meanwhile, at Phizer:

 

 

Oh hey perfect example of one of my points.  Guess who would have been the group to lead the enforcement action against Pfizer?  Yep you got it, it’s the FDA!!!!!!  You know the government agency you all say is in the bag for “Big Pharma”. 

[deedsker]

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Television ads do not affect drug cost, please be more informed if you want to make accusations. 

Why the ever living f*** do we have drug ads? My doctor should be more than knowledgeable enough to tell me what I need. Consumer ads should be eliminated.

 

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/prescription-drug-advertising-regulation-united-states/