Michael Moore - brilliant and uplifting - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-27-2007, 03:32 PM   #106
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:18 PM
why are all the European big pharma companies doing their R&D in the US? sure, their headquarters might be in Geneva, but the work is done in the US. what blockbuster drugs have been created by European pharma?

i'm also wondering if your assertion -- that the government picks up the tab in Europe -- is correct. my understanding (and i could very well be wrong, and thank you for your insights, i'm just trying to learn more) would be that a drug in the US market could be sold at market value. i'm wondering if a pill in France costs the same as a pill in the US, only the government gives you a 90% co-pay, say, in France. so if all that needs to happen is the US government simply pays more of the cost to the consumer, then everything stays about the same? i had thought that governments themselves bargained with big pharma? that government, and not the market, sets pharmaceutical prices in European countries, and the negotiated costs per pill is significantly less than in the US market, and thus the US market is what big pharma relies on to make up the difference.

i agree with not feeling bad for big pharma, but i think the profit motive has an overall positive affect on the potential of the latest breakthrough, and some would argue that pharma must raise capital in the market, just like Nike, and their risk-adjusted returns on equity aren't egregious in comparison to other products.

i suppose a question would be whether or not innovation -- however that might be defined -- in pharmaceuticals could be purchased at a much lower cost, whether it is just as lucrative to deal with the US government rather than the US drug market.

my biggest beef, however, with big pharma, is the marketing. marketing should be allowed to doctors only, and not directly to the consumers.

again, more thoughts than assertions.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 04:57 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Another major problem with pharma is that these new drugs often are only marginally better than previous generation drugs. One company invents a drug and then all the other ones create a very similar drug that is always "better" than the competition. Just look at how many drugs are out there for ED. Pfizer made a killing on Viagra, then Bayer came out with Levitra, Lilly came out with Cialis, etc. They talk about the new drug being 10 or 15% more effective and yet the price increase does not reflect the marginal improvement.
__________________

__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 05:05 PM   #108
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:18 PM
^ sounds like iPods.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 05:18 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

my biggest beef, however, with big pharma, is the marketing. marketing should be allowed to doctors only, and not directly to the consumers.
That's what pharma has done best. They have such an efficient marketing machine. It would rival the world's best. How many drug ads did you see on tv 15 years ago? Close to zero. But that all changed in the 80's when medicine became viewed as just another business and a lot of the older views of medicine no longer applied. It was supposed to empower the patient and makes things better, but that's not really the case. I'm sure pharma would agrue that marketing is part of empowering the patient to have an active role in their treatment, but it certainly wasn't a bad thing that it would drum up business as well.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 06:24 PM   #110
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


my biggest beef, however, with big pharma, is the marketing. marketing should be allowed to doctors only, and not directly to the consumers.
A large reason for why they started doing this is because doctors got out of control in the 80s and were essentially bought by big pharma. It was standard practice to fly them out to Hawaii for 5 day "conferences" following which they essentially became shills for the pharmaceuticals. Civil liberties unions specifically, and newly emerging pharmaceutical companies became very opposed to this because doctors would regularly not provide options to their patients. If your back pocket is being (indirectly or directly) padded by a certain pharmaceutical corporation, how likely are you to make other recommendations? Doctors are not any more ethical than other professionals.

Unfortunately now people are in the business of Google diagnosing themselves and showing up to doctors' offices demanding certain drugs regardless of whether they are appropriate for them.

You have to somehow strike a balance between the two, but I'm not sure exactly what the best form of marketing would be.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 06:32 PM   #111
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what blockbuster drugs have been created by European pharma?
LOTS. I don't know why there is a perception in the US that this type of work isn't being done.

I don't really feel like doing a ton of research but I can tell you right off the bat that Plavix (the 2nd biggest prescription drug seller in the world, by the way) was developed by Sanofi, which is French, which merged with Aventis (also European). In the US it's sold by BristolMyersSquibb, but it's most definitely a European patent.

Pravachol and Taxol are another two blockbusters, developed in Japan, and marketed/patented in the US by Bristol-Myers.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 06:59 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Does the Health Care system really suck that bad in Canada?

That's all we hear in the states and that Canadian women are both beautiful and unscrupulous.

Is any of this truth?

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 08:44 PM   #113
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Does the Health Care system really suck that bad in Canada?
No, it doesn't, not at all.

In the past five years, I've spent more time in doctors offices, ERs and hospitals than I care to remember, due to the health of elderly relatives. The experiences have been overwhelmingly positive. In many cases, wait times for specialists, tests, surgeries and treatments are grossly exaggerated, and I've been pleasantly surprised by the speed with which treatment was carried out. Best of all, it's free and available to everyone.

I saw Sicko last night, and can't imagine living with the stress that many Americans do over their health care costs. I'm well aware of Moore's tactics, and the argument that he's taking the most extreme cases and highlighting them as the norm. But the fact remains that in the US, countless lives are ruined over medical costs, and that's a shameful state for a rich nation to be in.


ETA - I'm not sure if this has been addressed in this thread, but the focus of the documentary isn't the lack of universal health care in the US, it's focuses more on people who are covered by private medical insurance, and the difficulties they have in getting the coverage they're entitled to, when they actually do make a claim. Of course, the implication is that if circumstances are this dire for them, how must it be for those who have no insurance.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 11:35 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


LOTS. I don't know why there is a perception in the US that this type of work isn't being done.


i don't have time for the research either, but to flesh out the perception, it's that these companie might be European, and have headquarters in Europe, but the work itself is mostly done in the US.

that's just the perception.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 11:35 PM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Thank you for your clarifying response Ms V-Punk.



dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-28-2007, 12:31 AM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i don't have time for the research either, but to flesh out the perception, it's that these companie might be European, and have headquarters in Europe, but the work itself is mostly done in the US.

that's just the perception.
Are you familiar with Arthur Kornberg? He won the Nobel some 4 decades ago for his work in medicine (more accurately genetics - DNA transfer). Interestingly his son won the Nobel in chemistry last year or the year before, I believe. Anyway, Kornberg was an American researcher at Stanford who ended up spending his sabbaticals in the UK and collaborating a lot with UK scientists. And there is a very, very famous quote by him which says roughly, "I went to England and I realized then the difference. The English were doing brilliant things. The Americans were doing lots of things."

So I think the public perception exists because of who knows what - media, some weird sense of patriotism or whatever. It's certainly not the perception in the scientific community. Plenty of drugs are developed and patented in Europe, and a huge number in Japan.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2007, 02:37 AM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Wow, I actually agree wth Michael Moore here.

Still, I wouldn't trust this film. I don't think I could ever take anything this guy says seriously. He's a liar.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 06-28-2007, 10:06 AM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Are you familiar with Arthur Kornberg? He won the Nobel some 4 decades ago for his work in medicine (more accurately genetics - DNA transfer). Interestingly his son won the Nobel in chemistry last year or the year before, I believe. Anyway, Kornberg was an American researcher at Stanford who ended up spending his sabbaticals in the UK and collaborating a lot with UK scientists. And there is a very, very famous quote by him which says roughly, "I went to England and I realized then the difference. The English were doing brilliant things. The Americans were doing lots of things."



anecdotes are nice, but i don't think this is coming out of some form of patriotism -- i'm just asking some questions and trying to learn more, and most of this perception is built less from the media and more from my friends who are members of the scientific community, many of whom did 1-2 year programs in the UK (at Cambridge, no less) after undergraduate but were dead set on returning to the US for graduate work because of greater opportunities available.

it's less that Americans are the ones making all these scientific breakthroughs, whether in pharmecuticals or whatever, and more that such things happen in the United States where there is a tremendous amount of capital available for innovation. the reason why 13 of the top 15 universities in the world are in the US is because of the capital available that attracts top talent from across the globe. (and note that the other two are British universities, which augments Kornberg's quote). in the last 15 years, the United States has won 93 Nobel Prizes; in second place is the UK with 9. the rest of the world combined has only 36. why? the US has a system that attracts and retains international talent. this has been true since Einstein.

and just to float the idea, i wonder if there isn't an impulse to downplay just how much goes on in the US out of a weird sense of nationalism or, perhaps, subtle anti-Americanism, the rolling of eyes and muttering "they think they're so great." and while i understand that, and can even sympathize with it (and do it in here myself sometimes at the mere mention of Resolution 1441), i wonder if the facts actually support that attitude.

Quote:
Plenty of drugs are developed and patented in Europe, and a huge number in Japan.
of course -- it's not to say that everything that happens happens in the US. but that a disproportionate amount of innovation/research/development happens in the US compared to the rest of the world combined, and much of the capital available to do all this comes from the American consumer.

which, in many ways, is a negative commentary on US society. it furthers the sense of stratification of society, of the dividing into privileged/not privileged, where the top get absolutely everything imaginable and the bottom foot the bill and is generally neglected. while European countries in particular are good at providing a good education to all, the US provides an unparalleled education to a few, and so health care follows suit.

i suppose the big question is whether or not we'd see this "innovation" continue if the US were to adopt a more socialized way of paying for pharmecuticals for it's citizens.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-28-2007, 10:24 AM   #119
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Of course the US attracts more people - your scientific research (private) is much better funded than anyone else's. That's as plain as night and day. You also have far more universities which do research because you allow for private institutions, which many nations don't. The endowment of a place like Harvard is enormous - how can you expect a publicly funded university like one of the London colleges (say Imperial) or Melbourne or Toronto to compete? They will never be able to, that much is a fact of life.

Would this innovation continue if the US adopted a more socialized way of paying? Of course. It isn't as if the US patients account for 90% of the drug costs. If your government hiked up your taxes (and remember how much more the rest of us are paying around the world), and partially subsidized drug costs out of that and negotiated some flat-rate deals with pharmaceuticals, you'd have much decreased drug prices, Big Pharma would take a small or maybe moderate pay cut (which they can MORE than afford to), and life would go on as it does. It's the pharma lobby that's disgraceful and has convinced people that innovation and R&D would stop. I mean, consider yourself, you are clearly a far above average individual and you're wondering whether the innovation would stop. I've never met anyone in the scientific community who thought so. Ever. And I've met more than my fair share. Which kind of tells you that the perception you have is the one which has been created out of the narrative crafted by big pharma. It's inaccurate and it's akin to fearmongering.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2007, 11:14 AM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Big Pharma would take a small or maybe moderate pay cut (which they can MORE than afford to), and life would go on as it does. It's the pharma lobby that's disgraceful and has convinced people that innovation and R&D would stop.


this is the insight i'm looking for, but to play the devil's advocate, and to reiterate a discussion had between myself and a rabid free-market friend of mine, it's the same profit impulse that drives the iPod (or Nikes) that drives AIDS drugs. that of course thing wouldn't come to a complete stop, that of course life would go on, but it wouldn't be as robust and nimble an industry as it currently is (or perhaps that's debatable). if not for the profit motive, would we have had the major breakthroughs with anti-retrovirals that we had in 1996?

i suppose that's an unanswerable question, but the capitalistic amongst us would point to that as a direct result of the free market. that government policies in the form of price controls imposed by national health-care systems harm the private sector. if the profits from the American market go down, then there will be less $$$ available for drug research.

but then, people will pay less for the drugs we already have.

i suppose it's a trade-off -- do you want to risk losing whatever profit motive may (or may not) spur someone to the next discovery akin to the anti-retrovirals of 1996, or do you want to ease the financial burdens on everyday Americans?

i dunno. but i'm glad i've done some reading on this. it's quite a conundrum -- and it gets at a bigger question which is how do we measure the "value" of health? can/should/is health commodified? to what extent? is this a bad thing?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com