RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 5:12:23 AM

KYsissy

Posts: 781
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline

Tazzy, you are only looking at FDA fees. Those are a drop in the bucket. This article says average cost is $350 million to bring one drug to market. And since most drugs fail, $ 5 billion will be spent on various attempts before one makes it to market.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/

_____________________________

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
Will Rogers, 1897-1935

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 5:24:18 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
R&D for drugs is expensive. It's also expensive to get the drug through the FDA after R&D has come up with a viable drug. My point isn't that we should all buy name-brand medications, but, we do have to have name-brand medications bought to fund that R&D.

This is a talking point the pharma companies repeat every chance they get, but the figures belie it.

Then please provide some figures for that pablum.

because the average cost to get a drug approved in the united states tops $700 million dollars.

I doubt they spend $700,000 dollars getting it approved in most countries.

Most countries rely on the FDA approval process. So that $ 700 million (which is R&D cost not simply the approval process) is spread out over most of the countries the drug will be sold in.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 5:44:18 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy

Tazzy, you are only looking at FDA fees. Those are a drop in the bucket. This article says average cost is $350 million to bring one drug to market. And since most drugs fail, $ 5 billion will be spent on various attempts before one makes it to market.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/

Yes, I am looking at the FDA fees.

quote:

Then please provide some figures for that pablum.

because the average cost to get a drug approved in the united states tops $700 million dollars.

I doubt they spend $700,000 dollars getting it approved in most countries.

Who does the approval? The FDA

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to KYsissy)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 7:27:43 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

A canadian perspective, in light of the new EU trade deal Canada has just struck

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/18/eu_trade_deal_could_bring_higher_drug_costs_for_canadians.html

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, prescription drug spending now represents 16 per cent of health spending, behind hospitals but ahead of physicians. Prescription drug spending is estimated at almost $27 billion in 2011 and $28 billion in 2012.
Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug.
Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year.
“On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.”

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 7:52:04 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
A canadian perspective, in light of the new EU trade deal Canada has just struck
http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/18/eu_trade_deal_could_bring_higher_drug_costs_for_canadians.html
According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, prescription drug spending now represents 16 per cent of health spending, behind hospitals but ahead of physicians. Prescription drug spending is estimated at almost $27 billion in 2011 and $28 billion in 2012.
Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug.
Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year.
“On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.”

Do you oppose drug patents?

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 8:38:39 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

I do when it gouges the end payer, forced to pay a hundred and sixty odd thousand a year for one medication

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 9:45:19 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I do when it gouges the end payer, forced to pay a hundred and sixty odd thousand a year for one medication

How is it determined that a price is "gouging" or not?

I'm all for not extending patents past their original terms. Currently, a patent is in force for 20 years from date of patent. If a manufacturer patents a drug before all trials are done, the length of time to recoup money is shortened. This is a known term and Big Pharma should have to abide by it, planning appropriately.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 9:51:44 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug.
Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year.
“On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.”
From the link I posted before

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website - 10/27/2013 4:56:52 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Keon argues that any delay in bringing generics to market has an impact on the bottom line. To illustrate his point, he cites the example of Pfizer’s Lipitor, an extremely popular cholesterol-lowering drug.
Before it came off patent protection a little over two years ago, annual Lipitor sales totaled $1.2 billion in Canada. After a generic version hit the market, the drug represented less than $300 million in sales a year.
“On one drug alone, the health-care system saved $900 million a year, each and every year,” Keon said. “If you delay things just by a year or two, the potential costs are very high.”
From the link I posted before

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question.

I read the article. I'm well aware of the high cost of brand-name medications, relative to their generic counterparts.

You stated that you oppose drug patents when it gouges the end payer. That implies that you aren't opposed if the end payer isn't being gouged.

How are you defining "gouging?"

What is an acceptable cost differential?

And, delaying any generic certainly does cost more, but that helps Big Pharma run, doesn't it? What would the point of researching and developing a new drug if there wasn't a profit to be made? Big Pharma (or any for-profit business, really) isn't in business of altruism. Big Pharma is in the business of making money by filling a need.

It costs money to develop products. That money is recouped while under the patent license (or, new R&D funding is gained while the patent for a drug is active).

_____________________________

What I support: