1572
1573

The average cost for a year's supply of a prescription drug doubled in just seven years to more than $11,000 — about three-quarters of the average annual Social Security benefit. (bigstory.ap.org)

ImperiousJazzHands が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]UnconventionalCook 76ポイント77ポイント  (16子コメント)

"In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into stock buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into paying dividends to shareholders. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay."

Harvard business review

[–]ja1484 -12ポイント-11ポイント  (15子コメント)

As a 401k and IRA holder with many of these pharma companies sitting somewhere in index funds my retirement accounts are holding, I approve of these companies striving for maximum profitability.

Who wouldn't? At least their product directly enables improved health and, in some cases, saves lives. I'd much rather a company profit off of that rather than airing a TV show about the Kardashians.

[–]UnconventionalCook 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

Most new cures & therapies come from University research through funding by the National institutes of Health, your tax money. Pfizer makes a good deal of it's money from branded drugs which have generic counterparts, ie: drugs we don't need that cost more than they should, it also spends more on Marketing these drugs than it does on Research & development of new drugs.

This year Pfizer will merge with Allergan, plc to form an Irish company, to cease paying American corporate taxes. The taxes that help fund the National Institutes of Health, actual cures & therapies, not designer drugs. How do you feel about that?

[–]admronoc -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's not true at all. Something like 30% of pharmaceutical research money comes from the US Federal government. Approximately 35% (in the comes from for profit pharmaceutical companies. Further, on a global economy scale 30% of pharmaceutical research money comes from revenue from pharmaceutical sales in the United States. That means around 32% of global pharmaceutical research comes from for profit pharmaceuticals.

As for NIH funding. The NIH denied funding for the researcher who developed a cure for Hep C. Denied him, despite him having a proven track record and being at one of the best pharmaceutical universities in the nation, Emory. I'm sure the 3.2 million people with Hep C are thankful that someone was able to fund that research.

[–]hardolaf 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

NIH denies a lot of studies because funds are limited and Hep. C just isn't that big of a deal compared to other problems that they are focusing on.

[–]ja1484 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Pretty good actually. It's the most rational business move by far:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428577/counterproductive-corporate-taxation

They are making exactly the move that US government overregulation has made the most sensible. But go ahead - keep thinking further regulation will help somehow.

[–]UnconventionalCook 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

When you're on your death-bed about to expire from something which could have been cured, but hasn't yet from lack of investment, you might remember this comment.

[–]ja1484 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You worried bout dyin?

[–]jrafferty 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

If a business wants to leave the US to avoid paying taxes I say good riddance, GTFO and don't come back...oh and by the way, You can't sell your shit here anymore...you are now the business equivalent of Cuba...good luck in Ireland.

[–]ja1484 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah the other 96% of the world's population certainly has no desire for products or services. Whatever could they do?

It's also funny that you think the smart move in this scenario is to deny the average person a choice of products and services and deprive them of job opportunities this company would create. That'll definitely help quality of life.

[–]EatingCake 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

As a 401K and IRA holder you have to realize than in retirement you'll spend more on drugs than you earn through their stock growth.

[–]ja1484 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not at all guaranteed.

[–]patchgrabber [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Then they shouldn't be lying by saying they are investing so much back into R&D. If the morals of profit over everything else don't matter to you, truth and integrity should. If you're Pfizer and you go for profit for shareholders above all else, don't be a duplicitous taint and say that you're using your inflated prices to do anything other than that.

[–]ja1484 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They're not lying. Their R/D budgets would indeed suffer if they took in less revenue. They wouldn't have to, but they would.

I always ask people: would you rather have expensive treatment options or be helpless to do anything at all?

[–]igotbulletprooflegs 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

But at what point does maximum profitability take precedence over saving lives?

[–]ja1484 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Always, if you're a pharma company. They are not in business to save lives, hey are in business to sell drugs. I imagine Glaxo couldn't give a shit if you bought their most expensive drug and watered plants with it so long as your check cleared.

[–]mjcov -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Always. that's Econ 101.