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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5474)	4/16/2008 10:13:10 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

As I stated before, when time is short risk is more acceptable. The current bureaucracy is broken and approves many fine drugs only after most of the patent life is expired. When a drug company has three years to recover a Billion Dollars the cost per dose will be much higher than if the recovery period were six to ten years. "The buyer doesn't bear more risk than they do now. Its not like they are forced to take the medicine if you remove the punishments for taking it. I'm just saying don't punish the buyer on top of having them bear the risk." You can't generally have it both ways. Right now testing is so exhaustive that almost all of the risk is extracted from the process if the prescribing doctor pays attention to what they are doing (and the correct drug is delivered and the patient does their part). In a world of no regulation risk becomes very personal. "often even when there is a problem that might be enough to stop approval, the drug might be worthwhile for some people anyway. Mostly for those with terminal or potentially terminal conditions, but in some cases it might make sense for others as well." I completely agree with your statement. The current bias favors safety at the cost of innovation. What would happen to the pace of innovation if the bias were shifted?