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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (116005)	7/21/2009 11:41:06 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

Allen; And I can't think of any way to achieve that without removing the profit from healthcare, for the most part, and having the government fund medical research. Boy do I appreciate your comments. You are talking of socialism here. One of the great incentives for even scientist by going into research is the huge returns possible if they hit on a cure. I don't think any government program can replicate that incentive - IOW, I think science pays the price if you move research to government. One of the reason cancer cures are so expensive is because of the small number of people taking those drugs/therapies? Any particular cancer might have but a small number of people who benefit - so drug companies to recoup their cost must charge a high figure. We have lots of government funded research now - lots! And I think we should have more yet. Obama has been very positive here. But still, it seems to me that the real progress comes out of these small biotechs funded by investors. One of the reason our health care is high by the way. steve

To: Cogito who wrote (116005)	7/21/2009 11:52:41 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

Nice note, Allen. Some comments. 1. On the "socialism" comment. It's important to remember two things often get bundled together, certainly right wing types like to do so. Singe payer systems are not, in and of themselves, socialistic, if doctors/health workers are not employed by the state. This would be particularly true in the US, in which one can expect, whatever happens, that those who can afford private insurance, could always buy it. Socialism as such is present only when healthcare workers are employed by the state. As for your arguments about the cost of medicine, Singer noted that US drugs sometimes/frequently cost less in Britain than here because drug companies know they have to come in under certain price points for the government to pay some of the costs, makes sense. The effect of that on innovation is hard to say. Again, in my view, this is not a binary situation, one in which you argue that full blown free market insurance gives you innovation and state controlled prices gives you no innovation. Much harder to tell the effects. But in our media bite public policy debate culture right now, it's terribly hard to have that.

To: Cogito who wrote (116005)	7/21/2009 2:24:42 PM
From: biotech_bull	Respond to of 541933

Allen, Thanks for sharing your perspective. Why has all this research not produced any drugs that don't cost a fortune? A recurring theme - I don't think it's so much a question of expensive vs inexpensive to produce, they're all highly priced period. The exorbitant prices for some of these drugs (some only marginally effective, if at all) defies logic. Seems the efficacy of the drug hasn't really been established. Another recurring theme - the FDA tends to approve based on safety more than efficacy and the efficacy data often doesn't hold up in real world use. I don't buy the argument that having stricter efficacy criteria before bringing a drug to market will stifle innovation or delay dramatically effective therapies. bb

To: Cogito who wrote (116005)	7/22/2009 10:13:22 AM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541933

Allen, I would say that drug costs are more related to the cost of doing the research on efficacy and safety rather than the cost of manufacturing. I thought I read somewhere that it takes 7-10 years to do the research to bring a drug to market and that 2 out of 3 that make it to phase 3 trials don't pan out at all and don't show efficacy. Since the exclusivity on drugs only last for 17 years, if it takes 10 years to bring a drug to market, they will need to recoup their costs and make their big profits in the next 7 years before generics can be made. This is a big part of the costs of drugs. However, another big part is the greed of the drug companies. Neal