Healthcare costs of U.S. Postal Service contributes to closing down more branches.

[BucEyedPea]

U.S. Postal Service has $7 billion deficit for this year due to employee retirement/healthcare plans and growing expenses of 6 day delivery.

Postmaster General John Potter is trying to cut costs by closing branches, hiring freezes and and offering early retirement plans.

The Government Accountability Office recently labeled the USPS a “high risk” federal program. Postal News (http://postal-news-network.blogspot.com/2009/07/gao-adds-postal-services-financial.html)


Ian Mathias is managing editor of The 5 Min. Forecast and AgoraFinancial.com. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/mathias5.1.1.html)

Now, if just one area of the Federal Govt is being dragged down financially with these costs including healthcare insurance which is very expensive then what makes anyone think the entire federal govt can afford a public health care insurance particulary in our current economic environment.

[HonestChieffan]

With any luck we can get these un needed post offices reopened and get everyone into ObamaCare.

[dirk digler]

My dad worked for the Post Office and retired after working 30 years and they offered him a huge early retirement package so he took it. That had to be 10+ years ago or longer. The Postal Service has great benefits but what is happening to them is not surprising. I just watched a segment on CNN about the Postal Service mail decline which was huge this past year. More people are using email and electronic delivery and ePay. I say cut them back to 3 days a week if that is what it takes.

[DaneMcCloud]

My dad worked for the Post Office and retired after working 30 years and they offered him a huge early retirement package so he took it. That had to be 10+ years ago or longer. The Postal Service has great benefits but what is happening to them is not surprising. I just watched a segment on CNN about the Postal Service mail decline which was huge this past year. More people are using email and electronic delivery and ePay. I say cut them back to 3 days a week if that is what it takes.

If junk mail were outlawed, the mail would only need be delivered two days per week.

[Simplex3]

...I say cut them back to 3 days a week if that is what it takes.

But then they won't be able to attract the same level of high quality employee that they do today. Who will piss in the mail bag while out picking up the mail? Who will just throw letters under the machines so they don't have to try and read the address? Who will shoot up their coworkers? Who I ask you. Who?

[Garcia Bronco]

The only way to truly lower healthcare costs is to get the hospitals and doctors to ask for less. Good luck

[HonestChieffan]

But then they won't be able to attract the same level of high quality employee that they do today. Who will piss in the mail bag while out picking up the mail? Who will just throw letters under the machines so they don't have to try and read the address? Who will shoot up their coworkers? Who I ask you. Who?

The really good ones will be running your health care....

[dirk digler]

If junk mail were outlawed, the mail would only need be delivered two days per week.

I agree but then the problem lies with business that need timely mail.

But then they won't be able to attract the same level of high quality employee that they do today. Who will piss in the mail bag while out picking up the mail? Who will just throw letters under the machines so they don't have to try and read the address? Who will shoot up their coworkers? Who I ask you. Who?

I agree with you as well. I quite don't understand how some of these people get a job there because my dad told me it was hard to get on. I guess was being the key word.

[DaneMcCloud]

The only way to truly lower healthcare costs is to get the hospitals and doctors to ask for less. Good luck

What?

That's nonsense.

How about limiting the time that drug companies can profit from the "R&D" bullshit?

There's absolutely no reason why a drug like Lithium, which costs .11 cents to make, should be going for $1.76 per pill decades after it's "discovery".

[HonestChieffan]

What?

That's nonsense.

How about limiting the time that drug companies can profit from the "R&D" bullshit?

There's absolutely no reason why a drug like Lithium, which costs .11 cents to make, should be going for $1.76 per pill decades after it's "discovery".


How would u pay for the R and D?

[DaneMcCloud]

I agree but then the problem lies with business that need timely mail.

Look, I'm not an expert by any means about the US Post Office. But I can tell you that when I worked at a "real job" on the studio lots, 99% was either emailed, sent by inter-company mail or messengered.

When my mailbox is littered and filled with junk mail each and every day with very little real and necessary mail delivered each week, I think the US P.O. has outgrown it's usefullness.

[DaneMcCloud]

How would u pay for the R and D?

Well first off, I wouldn't allow a pharmaceutical company to collect on that R&D for decades, especially when it's some as simple as Lithium.

I'd force the Pharm companies to prove the actual R&D costs and set a limit on the number of years that they could profit and the number of years before it went generic.

These companies, like the oil companies, need to be much more tightly regulated. It's completely insane as it stands.

[HonestChieffan]

junk mail supports the US Mail and makes it possible for the postage to remain low. Take away Junk mail and you will pay far more to mail a letter

[HonestChieffan]

Well first off, I wouldn't allow a pharmaceutical company to collect on that R&D for decades, especially when it's some as simple as Lithium.

I'd force the Pharm companies to prove the actual R&D costs and set a limit on the number of years that they could profit and the number of years before it went generic.

These companies, like the oil companies, need to be much more tightly regulated. It's completely insane as it stands.

So how long and how much profit? Will they have to sell at cost after a period of time? How much are they currently regulated?

[Garcia Bronco]

What?

That's nonsense.

How about limiting the time that drug companies can profit from the "R&D" bullshit?

There's absolutely no reason why a drug like Lithium, which costs .11 cents to make, should be going for $1.76 per pill decades after it's "discovery".

The market is the market, but since Government will in part pay for these drugs there is no market brought to bare on healthcare. Drug companies have a number of years of intellectual property rights on the drug. You should have no problem with intellectual property rights since you have argued for them on the board repeatedly with regard to entertainment.

[DaneMcCloud]

So how long and how much profit? Will they have to sell at cost after a period of time? How much are they currently regulated?

They're not regulated at all.

The FDA decides when a drug can be released as a generic. There are NO guidelines, whatsoever.

IF generics were allowed after the point determined, we certainly wouldn't see an .11 cent pill cost $1.76, would we?

Furthermore, I'm not advocating that pharm companies should no longer be allowed to profit. I'm stating that for one, this is the main reason why healthcare costs have skyrocketed and two, it's absolutely insane for companies to earn 1000% on necessary drugs for decades after their release.

It's not like I'm saying that plastic surgery should be free.

I'm talking about drugs that are necessary for a "regular" quality of life.

[beer bacon]

The only way to truly lower healthcare costs is to get the hospitals and doctors to ask for less. Good luck

The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries need to tighten their belts as well. The problem is the more money they make, they more money they can spend bribing our representatives in Washington to insure the status quo.

[HonestChieffan]

They're not regulated at all.

The FDA decides when a drug can be released as a generic. There are NO guidelines, whatsoever.

IF generics were allowed after the point determined, we certainly wouldn't see an .11 cent pill cost $1.76, would we?

Furthermore, I'm not advocating that pharm companies should no longer be allowed to profit. I'm stating that for one, this is the main reason why healthcare costs have skyrocketed and two, it's absolutely insane for companies to earn 1000% on necessary drugs for decades after their release.

It's not like I'm saying that plastic surgery should be free.

I'm talking about drugs that are necessary for a "regular" quality of life.



Your total lack of knowledge and willingness to spew this crap is endless.

[beer bacon]

Your total lack of knowledge and willingness to spew this crap is endless.

Where is that darn ironicat?

[DaneMcCloud]

Your total lack of knowledge and willingness to spew this crap is endless.

Oh, please, please tell us the real truth.

:shake:

[HonestChieffan]

Pharma is unregulated. "They're not regulated at all"

How absurd.

[Garcia Bronco]

They're not regulated at all.

The FDA decides when a drug can be released as a generic. There are NO guidelines, whatsoever.


There is a Patent involved. I actually had this discussion with a medical engineer last night

[Garcia Bronco]

The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries need to tighten their belts as well. The problem is the more money they make, they more money they can spend bribing our representatives in Washington to insure the status quo.

It's all of it from Doctors to medical suppliers and so on.

[DaneMcCloud]

The market is the market,

Wrong. Insurance companies are forced to pay for these drugs because the doctors have prescribed them. Where is the "market" for Lithium for example? Are you telling me that there's an alternative that's just as effective for pennies on the dollar?


but since Government will in part pay for these drugs there is no market brought to bare on healthcare. Drug companies have a number of years of intellectual property rights on the drug. You should have no problem with intellectual property rights since you have argued for them on the board repeatedly with regard to entertainment.

Entertainment is not a health requirement. I'm not going to die if I don't download a movie for free. I'm not going to lose my ability to see, breathe or function if I can't download the latest Pussycat Dolls song.

Furthermore, there is no "set" time for the pharm companies. There are drugs that have been on the market for years and years that don't have a generic version.

I am not against profit. But come on! This is the 21st century and people should not have to spend enormous amounts of money on "old" drugs.

[DaneMcCloud]

Pharma is unregulated. "They're not regulated at all"

How absurd.

You are a fucking moron of epic proportions.

Please, show us where there's a instituted time frame for each and every drug to go generic. Show us where there's an instituted time frame for each and every drug manufacturer to reduce its costs after making X amount of profit.

Please, show us.

[DaneMcCloud]

It's all of it from Doctors to medical suppliers and so on.

I don't buy that.

Doctors, for the most part, prescribe the drugs that the patient requires. Have you ever worked in the medical field? Did you know that these health care providers are allowed, by law, to charge Medicare and/or Medicaid three times the amount the cost of an actual medical "equipment", whether it's a catheter or blood test or syringe and so on?

It's fucking criminal.

[dirk digler]

Furthermore, there is no "set" time for the pharm companies. There are drugs that have been on the market for years and years that don't have a generic version.

I am not against profit. But come on! This is the 21st century and people should not have to spend enormous amounts of money on "old" drugs.

Totally agree with you Dane that pharm should have some sort of time line so they can make generic drugs and hopefully that will be in whatever bill they pass. I believe it is in the House bill.

But I do find it ironic that you are arguing basically the exact same point except on the opposite side when it comes to copyright for music etc. I really don't see the difference between the Beatles making money off their old songs and pharm companies making money off their old drugs.

[HonestChieffan]

You are a ****ing moron of epic proportions.

Please, show us where there's a instituted time frame for each and every drug to go generic. Show us where there's an instituted time frame for each and every drug manufacturer to reduce its costs after making X amount of profit.

Please, show us.

Look up...patent.

Also look up patent expiration guidelines.

[DaneMcCloud]

Totally agree with you Dane that pharm should have some sort of time line so they can make generic drugs and hopefully that will be in whatever bill they pass. I believe it is in the House bill.

But I do find it ironic that you are arguing basically the exact same point except on the opposite side when it comes to copyright for music etc. I really don't see the difference between the Beatles making money off their old songs and pharm companies making money off their old drugs.

I didn't say that the companies shouldn't be allowed to profit.

I said they shouldn't be allowed to make 1,000% over the cost of manufacturing.

Furthermore, please explain to me how taking a pill for my health will earn income for someone else? Because if you shortened copyright length, any movie studio, television corporation, advertiser, etc. could use the Beatles music for their own gain and profit.

It's not the same concept, at all.

[DaneMcCloud]

Look up...patent.

Also look up patent expiration guidelines.

Duh. That's not a regulation, nor should it entitle a corporation to earn 1,000% over the manufacturing costs for decades.

In essence, that doesn't make it "right".

Especially with health care costs spinning recklessly out of control.

You're a little brain, aren't you?

[Garcia Bronco]

Wrong. Insurance companies are forced to pay for these drugs because the doctors have prescribed them. Where is the "market" for Lithium for example? Are you telling me that there's an alternative that's just as effective for pennies on the dollar?




Entertainment is not a health requirement. I'm not going to die if I don't download a movie for free. I'm not going to lose my ability to see, breathe or function if I can't download the latest Pussycat Dolls song.

Furthermore, there is no "set" time for the pharm companies. There are drugs that have been on the market for years and years that don't have a generic version.

I am not against profit. But come on! This is the 21st century and people should not have to spend enormous amounts of money on "old" drugs.

You can purchase generic lithium

I believe the patent is 14 years. I could be mistaken

[DaneMcCloud]

You can purchase generic lithium

I believe the patent is 14 years. I could be mistaken

It was just a cost example.

[wild1]

yes, this is the government agency i want health care to resemble...

[Garcia Bronco]

Entertainment is not a health requirement. I'm not going to die if I don't download a movie for free. I'm not going to lose my ability to see, breathe or function if I can't download the latest Pussycat Dolls song.



Intellectual property rights are intellectual property rights. You are displaying they very behavior you spoke out against when the RIAA started it's crusade. And you were right at the time. I don't have free access nor am I entitled to someone elses property without compensation and you can always take your business elsewhere in music and pharma if you don't like what you have to pay out.
.

[dirk digler]

I didn't say that the companies shouldn't be allowed to profit.

I said they shouldn't be allowed to make 1,000% over the cost of manufacturing.

Furthermore, please explain to me how taking a pill for my health will earn income for someone else? Because if you shortened copyright length, any movie studio, television corporation, advertiser, etc. could use the Beatles music for their own gain and profit.

It's not the same concept, at all.

And if you allowed other pharm companies to make a generic drug off the original pharm's pill isn't that similar? They are using the original idea to make money for themselves.

[BucEyedPea]

My dad worked for the Post Office and retired after working 30 years and they offered him a huge early retirement package so he took it. That had to be 10+ years ago or longer. The Postal Service has great benefits but what is happening to them is not surprising. I just watched a segment on CNN about the Postal Service mail decline which was huge this past year. More people are using email and electronic delivery and ePay. I say cut them back to 3 days a week if that is what it takes.

Really my dad too for 30 years.

[dirk digler]

Really my dad too for 30 years.

It's destiny :)

[Garcia Bronco]

I didn't say that the companies shouldn't be allowed to profit.

I said they shouldn't be allowed to make 1,000% over the cost of manufacturing.

Furthermore, please explain to me how taking a pill for my health will earn income for someone else? Because if you shortened copyright length, any movie studio, television corporation, advertiser, etc. could use the Beatles music for their own gain and profit.

It's not the same concept, at all.

It is the same. It's just you feel you are entitled to whatever cost suits you because you attach the feeling that you are entitled to it. You aren't. You'll have to pay. We all do.

But back to my original post....to truly lower costs we have to get these compaines and doctors to take less money.

[DaneMcCloud]

Intellectual property rights are intellectual property rights. You are displaying they very behavior you spoke out against when the RIAA started it's crusade. And you were right at the time. I don't have free access nor am I entitled to someone elses property without compensation and you can always take your business elsewhere in music and pharma if you don't like what you have to pay out.
.

I'm sorry, the ability or inability to download music illegally from the internet is in no way, shape or form life-threatening, nor does it cost anyone but the copyright owner and performer any financial harm.

In other words, not having access to illegally downloaded files isn't dangerous to your health.

[wild1]

yes, this is the government agency i want health care to resemble...

[beer bacon]

How do the biomed companies get in the health care reform bills coming out of the House? I think it is 12 years.

[BucEyedPea]

It's destiny :)

He hated it. Started as a postman went up management ranks and hate the workers because half of them were lazy or didn't do their jobs. He had to do their jobs for them. High absenteeism too. He complained every night at the dinner table....hence early retirement.

[DaneMcCloud]

It is the same. It's just you feel you are entitled to whatever cost suits you because you attach the feeling that you are entitled to it. You aren't. You'll have to pay. We all do.

But back to my original post....to truly lower costs we have to get these compaines and doctors to take less money.

It's not the same and it's absolutely ludicrous for you to even suggest it.

[BucEyedPea]

yes, this is the government agency i want health care to resemble...

Which aspect? The one when they lose business they get to raise their rates when most private places have to bring them down?

[DaneMcCloud]

Which aspect? The one when they lose business they get to raise their rates when most private places have to bring them down?

I think he was being facetious

[Garcia Bronco]

I'm sorry, the ability or inability to download music illegally from the internet is in no way, shape or form life-threatening, nor does it cost anyone but the copyright owner and performer any financial harm.

In other words, not having access to illegally downloaded files isn't dangerous to your health.

You are correct. Your health is not endangered by downloading music. That is where the example is different. Now back to where they are the same: It's intellectual property rights. You had no problems with it when it surrounded your industry, but you have a problem with in another. Congrats! You serve your own self interests. It happens to everybody.

[dirk digler]

He hated it. Started as a postman went up management ranks and hate the workers because half of them were lazy or didn't do their jobs. He had to do their jobs for them. High absenteeism too. He complained every night at the dinner table....hence early retirement.

My dad didn't care for his bosses he thought they were idiots. He was offered the Postmaster position a couple of times and actually ran a small post office for a while just to help out. He carried when he was young but ended up working at the counter the rest of his time.

[DaneMcCloud]

You are correct. Your health is not endangered by downloading music. That is where the example is different. Now back to where they are the same: It's intellectual property rights. You had no problems with it when it surrounded your industry, but you have a problem with in another. Congrats! You serve your own self interests. It happens to everybody.

Wrong.

It has nothing to do with "self interests" and everything to do with an industry whose costs are spiraling out of control to the point where the government has decided to sticks it's grubby paws in to regulate.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's not the same and it's absolutely ludicrous for you to even suggest it.

LOL. You don't get it. This is your argument summerizd from the RIAA conversations(some hyperbole may follow):

Patents and Copy Rights are okay around music and by God we will put the 80 year-old lady under the jail for music she's probably already paid for on a different medium, but health care....fuck off it's my health and I am entitled to it.

that's you attitude.

[Garcia Bronco]

Wrong.

It has nothing to do with "self interests" and everything to do with an industry whose costs are spiraling out of control to the point where the government has decided to sticks it's grubby paws in to regulate.

The Government has already been regulating it. The problems started when government got involved in the first place.

[DaneMcCloud]

LOL. You don't get it. This is your argument summerizd from the RIAA conversations(some hyperbole may follow):

Patents and Copy Rights are okay around music and by God we will put the 80 year-old lady under the jail for music she's probably already paid for on a different medium, but health care....fuck off it's my health and I am entitled to it.

that's you attitude.

No, that's NOT my attitude.

Furthermore, I'd like you to find even one quote where I've mentioned the RIAA in a favorable light (if at all).

On top of that, this discussion really doesn't even apply to me personally because as I've stated before, the doctors that I chose to visit don't even accept insurance of any kind. I pay out of pocket for nearly everything.

My Dad ran a few insurance corporations, I've got close friends that are doctors, pharmaceutical reps, medical supply salesmen in addition to my own experience as a billing supervisor for a home health agency back in the late 80's for reference.

It seems everyone else opposing regulation and NHC in this forum is spouting uninformed bullshit and just linking favorable online nonsense to further their own agenda.

It's sickening.

[DaneMcCloud]

The Government has already been regulating it. The problems started when government got involved in the first place.

Untrue

[BucEyedPea]

Gracia, I support some patent reform but support © laws. Copyright has some exceptions carved out of it for the public good like education. I think something like that can be done on patents. Plus Big Pharma benefits from grants to universities for research. They have a nerve to claim an exclusive right to a patent in those cases.

[DaneMcCloud]

Gracia, I support some patent reform but support © laws. Copyright has some exceptions carved out of it for the public good like education. I think something like that can be done on patents. Plus Big Pharma benefits from grants to universities for research. They have a nerve to claim an exclusive right to a patent in those cases.

They are two completely different animals but because of the internet, everyone's an intellectual property expert.

:shake:

[HonestChieffan]

You learn alot about the drug business on the backlots of Hollywierd.

[DaneMcCloud]

You learn alot about the drug business on the backlots of Hollywierd.

You're a dumbfuck.

You should be embarrassed, old man.

[BucEyedPea]

They are two completely different animals but because of the internet, everyone's an intellectual property expert.

:shake:

Oh yeah! I have been hired to give talks at colleges with art/design departments regarding ©. I know how it affects my profession and it's an esoteric law that's not super simple. I've had a couple of infringement suits that I won too. One a major corporation.

[Garcia Bronco]

No, that's NOT my attitude.

Furthermore, I'd like you to find even one quote where I've mentioned the RIAA in a favorable light (if at all).

On top of that, this discussion really doesn't even apply to me personally because as I've stated before, the doctors that I chose to visit don't even accept insurance of any kind. I pay out of pocket for nearly everything.

My Dad ran a few insurance corporations, I've got close friends that are doctors, pharmaceutical reps, medical supply salesmen in addition to my own experience as a billing supervisor for a home health agency back in the late 80's for reference.

It seems everyone else opposing regulation and NHC in this forum is spouting uninformed bullshit and just linking favorable online nonsense to further their own agenda.

It's sickening.

I didn't say you defended the RIAA. In fact you did give them the business, but you still supported the intllectual property rights of the artists. Well here, the R&D spent and recouped by the companies is the same thing. They are the artist and they have a right to their proprty within the limits of the patent.

[Garcia Bronco]

They are two completely different animals but because of the internet, everyone's an intellectual property expert.

:shake:

Two different aniamals you say, but they are still animals yes?

That's right, they are.

[DaneMcCloud]

Two different aniamals you say, but they are still animals yes?

That's right, they are.

Again, I didn't proclaim that the pharm companies should operate at a loss or without profit (which is what would happen if copyrights were shortened or eliminated).

I stated that there should be regulation so that these same companies can't charge 1,000% of the actual manufacturing cost years down the line.

Capice?

[HonestChieffan]

Again, I didn't proclaim that the pharm companies should operate at a loss or without profit (which is what would happen if copyrights were shortened or eliminated).

I stated that there should be regulation so that these same companies can't charge 1,000% of the actual manufacturing cost years down the line.

Capice?


Copyrights? In Pharma?

[DaneMcCloud]

Copyrights? In Pharma?

JFC.

Can you follow along or is this too complicated for you?

[Simplex3]

There's absolutely no reason why a drug like Lithium, which costs .11 cents to make, should be going for $1.76 per pill decades after it's "discovery".

Kind of like letting some guy who spent a couple of days and no money writing a song own that song forever, huh?

:D

[JohnnyV13]

Well first off, I wouldn't allow a pharmaceutical company to collect on that R&D for decades, especially when it's some as simple as Lithium.

I'd force the Pharm companies to prove the actual R&D costs and set a limit on the number of years that they could profit and the number of years before it went generic.

These companies, like the oil companies, need to be much more tightly regulated. It's completely insane as it stands.

Uh Dane, its called a Patent. Patents, however, are unrelated to R & D costs, but is a time limit based upon your conception date (20 years). Usually, the effective time limit of a patent is much shorter, since actually reducing the idea into an actual product (reduction to practice), gaining necessary approvals, and the time it takes to actually get the patent granted (2 years for most inventions, 4 in the bio tech arena).

After a drug is off patent, it can then be manufactured by other companies...hence generic.

R & D costs can't be on an individual drug basis either, since a company usually researches many dry wells before coming up with a winner. From a patent law perspective, only a small percentage of the patents granted
will actually be commercially valuable. Yet, the "dry wells" are part of the process. You can't eliminate them from the cost.

We could reduce the manufacturing monopoly granted by a patent, but the 20 year period is the world standard. Changing that time period not only would have international consequences in terms of patent harmonization, (the US is already at odds with the rest of the world since we are the only ones to use a "first inventor" priority system rather than first to file), it would also be bad economic policy.

Ideas are about the only thing the United States manufactures with any efficiency, and any move to limit companies from exploiting those inventions would have a hugely negative impact on American firms and the revenue streams we gain from those inventions. We already have enough problems protecting our intellectual property, do you really want to reduce the time period? (Think about your business Dane. In the music industry, you depend on the power of your international copyrights. How much do you lose annually from violations of those copyrights? Would you really want to weaken those intellectual properties?)

Obviously, patents and copyrights aren't really related in the sense that weakening the patent term would somehow undermine copyrights. But, the relative value of patents to pharm companies and copyrights to the music business are quite analogous.

The reason the "time to generic" isn't standardized is because the time required for a patent application, regulatory approval and swearing back to win a priority date (establishing you're the "first inventor") can vary quite a bit. What you're seeing is differences in effective market exploitation. BUt, the patent term itself is standard (20 years).

[BucEyedPea]

Kind of like letting some guy who spent a couple of days and no money writing a song own that song forever, huh?

:D

I can see owning a song forever. It's their creation from their mind. It's a property right. No one's health is dependent on it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Uh Dane, its called a Patent.

I understand all of that, completely.

I also understand that because of that, healthcare costs have skyrocketed to the point where something needs to change in regards to pharm costs.

Again (for the third time), I'm not stating that Pharm companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. I'm stating that they shouldn't be able to make 1,000% profit in perpetuity.

The current "system" will bankrupt this country, especially as the nation's mean age grows older.

[JohnnyV13]

I understand all of that, completely.

I also understand that because of that, healthcare costs have skyrocketed to the point where something needs to change in regards to pharm costs.

Again (for the third time), I'm not stating that Pharm companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. I'm stating that they shouldn't be able to make 1,000% profit in perpetuity.

The current "system" will bankrupt this country, especially as the nation's mean age grows older.

Pharm costs are part of the picture. As well as the cost of biomedical machines. If you put health care costs on a curve, you'll find that malpractice cost and physician services are actually pretty flat (physicians are actually making less than they were 20 years ago, relative to inflation). The big drivers for increasing prices are costs for machines and drugs.

We can regulate those things. But, regulation will reduce the drive to improve medical technology.

Things are likely to get worse before they get better. If we're an aging population now, what happens when we're all popping mature resveratrol products and living until we're 110?

[BucEyedPea]

I support patent reform but not abolition of patents.
I read a study that showed that innovation would continue based on past history even without patents.

[DaneMcCloud]

We can regulate those things. But, regulation will reduce the drive to improve medical technology.


I don't buy that at all.

Reducing overall profits for these companies won't push them out of their respective businesses. If anything, it'll increase their drive knowing that there's a very limited window in which to earn the lion's share of their income.

We're talking about life, here. Not wants and excesses.

Human life.

[banyon]

I support patent reform but not abolition of patents.
I read a study that showed that innovation would continue based on past history even without patents.

I guess that's progress. You used to want to abolish it all. 1 study is all it takes for you to want to reduce that constitutional protection, huh?

[wild1]

I think we are lowering ourselves into a snakepit if we start to say that we aren't going to allow patents on certain things solely because a large number of people would benefit financially from it.

[JohnnyV13]

I don't buy that at all.

Reducing overall profits for these companies won't push them out of their respective businesses. If anything, it'll increase their drive knowing that there's a very limited window in which to earn the lion's share of their income.

We're talking about life, here. Not wants and excesses.

Human life.

Perhaps in the short term. In the long term, limiting the reward for patents will reduce the pace we create new medical technology.

Reduce the potential profit margin, and capital will flow toward other ventures which do not have restricted margins. Restrict big pharms profits, and you will limit their ability to command capital for R & D.

At the college/grad school level, people will start looking at careers thinking, hmmmm...if I become is biomedical researcher, I'll never have a chance to make big money, BUT if I choose computer chip design nothing will restrict my future income. Or, god forbid, I might enter the entertainment industry.

Even with those things said, you might not be wrong. We could very well be investing more in medical technology than our society can really afford. But, don't pretend there won't be costs associated with reducing the rewards for innovation.

[JohnnyV13]

I support patent reform but not abolition of patents.
I read a study that showed that innovation would continue based on past history even without patents.

Certainly there would still be innovation. But, the innovation would slow down a considerable amount.


Without patents, we'd have people using "trade secret" like protections. Basically, companies would be hoarding their information and research behind their products in an attempt to maintain a technological edge (thus a market edge) as long as possible.

Without patents, we wouldn't have nearly as many licensing agreements, which allows companies to incorporate the technology of other companies into their products, sometimes in fields that seem totally unrelated.

Patents actually spur invention not just from creating a reward, but also from forcing the inventor to fully disclose his invention. These disclosures help advancement in other fields in ways the inventor doesn't even realize. Without some reward for his invention, why would any inventor disclose?

[DaneMcCloud]

Perhaps in the short term. In the long term, limiting the reward for patents will reduce the pace we create new medical technology.

Well, I'm not advocating limiting the patent itself. I'm advocating putting a cap on the amount of income that can be earned from a drug long after it's it's in the "black".

Like I stated earlier, it's ridiculous that these companies can charge 1,000% markup for a drug more than a decade after it's introduction, especially routinely prescribed drugs.

There needs to be some accountability with these pharmaceutical companies and an action like this would greatly reduce premiums.

[BucEyedPea]

Certainly there would still be innovation. But, the innovation would slow down a considerable amount.
I used to believe that but apparently the point is overrated and not looked at closer. Think of all the innovation in other things where there aren't any. Like the wheel for one. I may have posted a link to it a couple of years ago.

Other than that you're arguing like I was for abolishing patents. I said I'd be for some reform and have some public interest provisions like © law already has or some such.
I most certainly am not for allowing pharma to have exclusive patents after use of any public funds though—even if indirect.

[banyon]

Yes, the well-documented patent and revenue history of the invention of the wheel.

[chiefzilla1501]

Well, I'm not advocating limiting the patent itself. I'm advocating putting a cap on the amount of income that can be earned from a drug long after it's it's in the "black".

Like I stated earlier, it's ridiculous that these companies can charge 1,000% markup for a drug more than a decade after it's introduction, especially routinely prescribed drugs.

There needs to be some accountability with these pharmaceutical companies and an action like this would greatly reduce premiums.

You pay for what you get. Patients pay more for drugs in America than, say, Canada. But there's a good reason for that. America regulates pharma to a ridiculous extent. In my opinion, too much. And quite frankly, a lot of the reason why pharma has to charge a hefty premium is that they have to be prepared for a scenario in which a patient sues them--it forces them to pay expensive legal costs, a potential settlement, and an ultra-expensive recall.

The reason drugs are so expensive is largely because of the high costs of R&D/innovation (already mentioned) and the high cost of protecting us, the consumer. You go to markets like Canada and you have no idea what you're putting in your body. Unfortunately, the assurance that what you put in your body is safe carries a pretty expensive price tag.

[chiefzilla1501]

I don't buy that at all.

Reducing overall profits for these companies won't push them out of their respective businesses. If anything, it'll increase their drive knowing that there's a very limited window in which to earn the lion's share of their income.

We're talking about life, here. Not wants and excesses.

Human life.

Pharma doesn't work like most businesses. They have 7 years to come up with a breakthrough drug until their patent expires. You know what's happening to Pfizer and Merck? They're getting creamed. You know why? Because they're struggling to come up with breakthrough drugs. A lot of their drugs are going to expire in a few years, and they have a limited pipeline of new drugs that will help carry them in the future.

Like any business, there's obviously some case of corporate greed. But if we're talking human life, the standard of living in America has increased exponentially because of pharma's ability to turn profit into the R&D that creates breakthrough drugs.

It's a tradeoff. Do you want to offer affordable drugs to all? Or do you want to ensure that we continue to find breakthroughs in drugs... maybe one day, for example, the cure for cancer? That's a pretty tough question to answer.

[DaneMcCloud]

The reason drugs are so expensive is largely because of the high costs of R&D/innovation (already mentioned) and the high cost of protecting us, the consumer. You go to markets like Canada and you have no idea what you're putting in your body. Unfortunately, the assurance that what you put in your body is safe carries a pretty expensive price tag.

I don't really buy that line of thinking.

You really do? Do you hear of epidemics of people getting bad prescription drugs in Canada (and elsewhere)? Are you implying that people die because of "bad" pharmaceuticals?

That sounds to me like tin hat bullshit perpetrated by the pharm companies.

[chiefzilla1501]

I don't really buy that line of thinking.

You really do? Do you hear of epidemics of people getting bad prescription drugs in Canada (and elsewhere)? Are you implying that people die because of "bad" pharmaceuticals?

That sounds to me like tin hat bullshit perpetrated by the pharm companies.

This was probably a bad example. But I stand by my other points.... pharmaceutical companies take an enormous hit from ambulance chasers who will sue them at every turn. It actually pisses me off that even if a drug is a miracle drug for 95% of the market, it has to be pulled if it misjudged the side effects of the 5%. And the other point... while you suggest bringing profits down, studies have shown that profits tend to correlate with R&D investment almost perfectly. As profits go up, R&D goes up by a very similar amount. As profits go down, R&D goes down by a very similar amount.

Again, it depends on where you stand. Do you want cheaper drugs? Or do you want to lessen the ability to sue? On that, I most definitely want cheaper drugs. But do I want cheaper drugs or R&D? Without a doubt I want R&D.

[DaneMcCloud]

Again, it depends on where you stand. Do you want cheaper drugs? Or do you want to lessen the ability to sue? On that, I most definitely want cheaper drugs. But do I want cheaper drugs or R&D? Without a doubt I want R&D.

Hence the notion of "reform".

[chiefzilla1501]

Hence the notion of "reform".

The problem is that you will never see legal reform, because politicians have their fingers up lawyers' asses. I think that's one of the surest ways to bring pharma costs WAY down.

As for your idea of cutting profits, it's something you can do, I just don't think it's something you should do. I know it's tempting to think pharma are taking huge windfall profits, but they actually are very good about investing it into breakthrough innovations that are going to make future generations of Americans much healthier. Again, I think that's a much tougher trade-off than it appears. For every $1M of profits you take away from pharma, you'll probably take away $1M in innovation.

[DaneMcCloud]

Again, I think that's a much tougher trade-off than it appears. For every $1M of profits you take away from pharma, you'll probably take away $1M in innovation.

I think that's way overstated.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

[chiefzilla1501]

I think that's way overstated.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

The only reason it's overstated is that in recent years, some of that $'s have shifted into marketing. Either way, the money is being put back into the company. An increase in marketing may sound like a really evil thing, but it isn't necessarily. Marketing is about understanding your customer and the more pharma companies understand their customer, the better they understand how to make drugs that suit their customer.

So yes, fair to say that R&D has lost some focus and I would argue that some firms got carried away and are paying too much attention to marketing at the expense of R&D, but "smart" firms that strike a good balance between the two are spending their money pretty wisely.

[DaneMcCloud]

The only reason it's overstated is that in recent years, some of that $'s have shifted into marketing. Either way, the money is being put back into the company. An increase in marketing may sound like a really evil thing, but it isn't necessarily. Marketing is about understanding your customer and the more pharma companies understand their customer, the better they understand how to make drugs that suit their customer.


It's late, I don't feel like addressing this but the bottom line is that you're wrong.

Several of my close friends are/were pharm reps and the guys that aren't, lost their jobs due to downsizing. And on top of that, they don't "market to the public", they market to doctors.

That's a whole 'nother line of horseshit that occurs in that industry that needs "reform".

[chiefzilla1501]

It's late, I don't feel like addressing this but the bottom line is that you're wrong.

Several of my close friends are/were pharm reps and the guys that aren't, lost their jobs due to downsizing. And on top of that, they don't "market to the public", they market to doctors.

That's a whole 'nother line of horseshit that occurs in that industry that needs "reform".

You're confusing marketing with sales. Pharma have been forced to downsize their sales dollars, largely because they were criticized for spending way too much money on goodies like free football tickets or expensive dinners to wine and dine doctors. In fact, it's because these sales dollars are limited that marketing spends increased--because they have less ability to use sales forces to market B2B (to doctors), they're instead using it to market DTC (direct to consumer). That's why you see and hear so many ads that say "ask your doctor about...." Far more than you used to 10 years ago. Marketing also includes TV ads, direct mail, radio, PR, sponsorships, etc... and those are popping up everywhere. Think about how many times you've seen a Viagra or Levitra commercial. And TV ads are really, really expensive. It also includes customer research and strategy. These research projects are ultra-expensive and I don't think people realize how expensive they are until they're part of a company that does a lot of them. One of the main rationales of marketing is that if you can build a brand name, like Viagra, then customers will still buy Viagra after the patent has expired.

Sure, it sounds like all they're doing is blowing their profits into TV ads. Personally, I'd rather they invest it in R&D. But what marketing does is it gives pharmaceutical companies a fair shot at still building sales after their patent expires, one of the biggest threats to a pharma company's profits. That's really what you want--you have a Viagra on the market for those who are willing to pay, and a cheap generic for those who don't. Before marketing, there was no choice--once the patent expired, a lot of people shifted to cheaper generics.

I can understand being upset that R&D dollars are shifting to marketing. But it's just the cost of doing business. Again, I don't have any problem with pharma companies being profitable if they're putting a lot of that money into at least an attempt to grow their business.