A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (3050)	12/4/2007 12:01:46 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) of 42652

Certainty they would not stop R&D, but to the extent that you make the investment in R&D and testing less profitable, you get less of it. The expense is hundreds of million per drug. Count time value of money and the fact that many drugs fail and your talking about billions per successful drug. Reduce the amount that a blockbuster drug can profit the drug company and you reduce the incentive to take risks, you get less new drugs developed, and you get a larger percentage of them as low risk safe bets, like the "me too" drugs that you complained about (which are useful, and worth having in many cases, but I'd rather have them in combination with more risky innovation.) The point is to have a level playing field. If you US were to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world, instead of subsidizing the drug companies, then that would show in their average COGS. They would have to raise prices elsewhere. Your argument that they would decrease R&D is silly... that's all they have if they want to stay in business. Marketing maybe...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next