There is a lot wrong with this post of yours Soho.
Who gets the generic rights to any drug? ......................Other Pharmaceutical companies is who gets those rights, not the american tax payer.
It would be a interested economic equation to look at the billions spent on drug R&D by tax payers and compare that to those same billions be put to work in other sectors of our economy say in public transit or infrastructure building and see which benefits the economy more? A few jobs at automated Pharmaceutical companies for the workers who watch the machines as they pour out thousands of pills a minute or hundreds of thousands of people working to build mass transit systems and bridges. Wonder which would benefit the economy more?
I never complained about Pharmaceutical companies soho, you must be thinking of somebody else.
My daughter is a pharmacist , Mostly US army trained, there is a place for drugs and research . I would argue that if the US tax payer puts money into that drug then we should get paid back at least part of our investment. And seeing how US pharmaceutical companies manage to peddle their drugs for far less than they cost in America I would think a little negotiation of prices is in order.
QUOTE=TakuanSoho The PHH is fine and all, but it won't be what is passed by our government.
Okay , since when did we become a country when we just lay down and say this is a good thing to do but our government won't allow it to happen? That apathy among the American people is really starting to tick me off.
What happened to insisting politicians do what is right, they work for we the people after all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
I think you missed a lot in my response. First I said that I was not opposed to a universal health system, I said that I had no faith that our government could do it properly. The PHH is fine and all, but it won't be what is passed by our government.
Second, I didn't say that all health care plans would "take" from Pharma, I said that Canada does take. However, as you pointed out, a lot of money is going into R&D, and that R&D leads to new drugs. If you reduce the money available for R&D (whether by negotiating or reducing tax credits or whatever), the development of new drugs will be reduced. Now, is it possible to have UHC and not do this. Yes. However, given the atmosphere where everyone is pointing the finger at Pharma, I doubt something sensible like that would occur.
Now, do you want this? Perhaps so, perhaps the new drugs aren't worth the cost. But at least be honest about this happening. Make it part of the responsible argument rather than complain about Pharma (not that you are, but most people do). Now with UHC this could be addressed by accepting that for the first 14 years only those with supplemental insurance can have this drugs (after they go generic, the government can make all it wants) or some other reasonable give or take, but don't just say we will take money from Pharma.
As for investing in R&D. Personally no, I don't believe in the government doing it. That the government DOES do it doesn't give them ownership rights anymore than taxpayers should get something back from your house because they funded your mortgage deductions. We do get tons back from R&D, not least of which is that we are helping to employ many people who then pay taxes. Furthermore, after 14 years, we get the generic rights to the drugs.
No, the real issue is that people want things now, but they don't want to have to pay for it. Prescription drugs is all about trying to get something for nothing by ignoring that people have to spend money, and lots of it, to discover these drugs.
|