View Single Post
Old 04-28-2011, 01:52 PM   #122
Jill
Colonist Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA (transplant from St. Louis, MO)
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post

The advertisements for drugs is pretty weird, and I would prefer it if they weren't on tv, but the argument in favor of them is that some consumers won't even know there is a drug that can help them unless those commercials exist.
I don't buy that argument at all. Men wouldn't know they have erectile dysfunction? People wouldn't know they have arthritis or asthma?

Here's how that "problem" fixes itself -- healthcare reform that pays for primary care so people will be able to get annual exams at a minimum. Let doctors diagnose, not Joe Schmoe sitting on his couch deciding he must have restless leg syndrome.

Replace a portion of drug advertising with PSAs that encourage people to see their doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post

I disagree with you on patents. The idea of a patent is that you invent something and then it's yours. You can keep other people from making that item until the patent expires. The tradeoff is that in the patent, you tell the world how you did it, so that once the patent has expired, human knowledge is advanced, and other people can build upon that invention. The term of a patent is only 20 years. If you take patent protection away from some people or companies, why in the world would they bother to invent anything? People are just going to steal their invention.

There are lots of drugs out there that are no longer covered by patents. I take generic claritin this time of year because my allergies act up. That patent expired a few years ago and that drug, which is quite helpful to me, is now available for my use for a very low price.
You missed the point of the linked story. That company didn't invent or create that drug. They hadn't even been manufacturing it. It was being done "on the side" by compounding pharmacies for $10 a pop. Then the government came in (with the support of March of Dimes, ftr) and assigned a drug company to start manufacturing that drug, prohibited the compounding pharmacies from doing it anymore, and the drug company, who had nothing whatsoever to do with developing that drug, jacked up the price to $1,500 a shot. How is that "free market"? How is that in any way, shape or form "fair"? Especially to the American taxpayer who's going to have to start picking up the $30 million dollar tab for this??

More later, but gotta run now. Hasta!
Jill is offline   Reply With Quote