Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (66757)	11/9/2004 11:11:05 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

Bunk. There is no profit motive: Simply put, the United States does not have any vaccine manufacturers at home because that sector of the industry is viewed as not profitable enough by U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Other priorities? They prefer to spend their funds on developing — and marketing — plenty of “me-too” drugs that ultimately do little to keep this nation’s people healthy. But they are surely great for companies’ bottom line. The other argument that U.S. pharmaceutical companies like to raise about their absence from the vaccine market is that the liability risk is too high. In short, if you do something wrong, those trial lawyers will sue your socks off. Seeing it through Americans’ eyes Unfortunately, that argument is a convenient excuse that plays on prevailing stereotypes. If the argument really held water, surely those foreign manufacturers would not be so stupid as to market their products in the United States, given the presumed liability risks. The crux of the problem is the short-sightedness of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry — as well as the U.S. government's willingness to go along with it. But the U.S. dependence on outsourcing vaccine production is even harder to comprehend if you look at it from the vantage point of the American people. Collectively, they spend a world-record 15% of the nation’s GDP on healthcare. No other nation comes even close to the $1.6 trillion Americans shell out for healthcare each year. Pharmaceutical companies are among the major beneficiaries from this spending bonanza. Still, when it comes to doing their part in potentially protecting the nation’s survival, they have one short answer. It’s “Nyet!” The biggest client Pharmaceutical companies are private-sector enterprises — and therefore should be free to engage in businesses they choose to, right? Well, up to a point. Put yourself in the shoes of a business that depends on one big customer for much of its business. That would describe the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, which provides a major part of the industry’s revenues via Medicare, for example. The defense parallel Now imagine your best customer really wants you to produce an item — even one you are not so hot about. In the give-and-take of commercial relationship, it is a well-known business practice to accommodate your big client. What is especially astounding is the extent to which the United States depends on non-U.S. sources for what could be life-and-death matters on a major scale. Perhaps the most apt parallel in this regard is the defense sector. There, the U.S. government would never think of depending solely on non-U.S. suppliers for critical defense goods. In fact, the government goes too far in the defense area by showing too little openness for foreign purchases. Why then this happy-go-lucky attitude on flu vaccines? A chronic problem Sure enough, Americans can all count on politicians and industry leaders alike claiming that all of this is a case of bad luck. We wish it were so easy. Lest one forgets, there were severe shortages of flu vaccines in the United States in 2003. Now Americans are in for a repeat of that crisis, if not worse. The nation has only its short-sightedness to blame for it all. Making an exception Outsourcing clearly has its benefits as part of any economic equation — but not to the point of depending on it 100% in a truly critical area such as public health. That is not only bad economic management. It’s deadly! theglobalist.com