Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

Just as a side-note, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence emerging from China that they may have over-stated how controlled the viral outbreak is.
Cinemas are closing down again, photos have emerged of funeral urns being delivered in their thousands to crematoriums, internet activity has dropped as has the number of phones in use...

And just to make things really scary, there have been a few confirmed cases of people recovering from the Corvid-19 virus, only to come down with it again.

Coupled with China's long-standing reputation for lying to the world about anything that they find to be embarrassing such as the fact that they've effectively stopped testing for the virus in many areas (hence no new cases being reported)...

Yeah. This is not looking good.

n7axw wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote: China knew because it had escaped from their biowarfare lab.

If we're going to speculate, let's have a bit of fun with it... the whole corovid thing originated out of o hole in TFLY's hip pocket.... It was supposed to be a secret weapon aimed at liberals, but it got away!

Don

-

it can not be me. I prefer nuclear weapons over biological weapons. It is so much easier to predict and taylor the effects. Earth pentrating warheads with shaped nuclear charges are particularly useful for destroying covert, underground, biowarfare labs while minimizing callatoral casaulties and damage.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The US system is expensive. Malpractice awsuits and the fear of lawsuits multiply the costs. However; anyone walking or being wheeled in to the ER is going to get cared for with or without insurance. This care includes quick access to sophisticated diagnostics such as CAT scan and MRI.

The E wrote:And? What's your argument here? We, too, have malpractice lawsuits. We, too, require hospitals and ERs to treat patients regardless of their insurance status.
And yet, we still pay a lot less for the same or higher quality of service than you.

Compared to lawsuits in the US, your lawsuits are laughable. There are caps on lawsuits in almost EVERY other country in the world. Including your very own Germany. In fact, certain lawsuits that would, and have, yielded enormous judgements in the US can't even be litigated in the UK. In fact, the lawsuit against PG&E, one of the biggest payouts in American history would have been a different story in your country. Plaintiffs (thousands in this case), cannot sue for medical costs in the UK because your govt. picks up that tab.

Anyway, there is absolutely no comparison between lawsuits. Plus, the laws are different in almost every state in the US. So a defendant can never know what to expect, therefore difficult to fortify against an attack except to fund a huge hedge.

cthia wrote:One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US is the cost of prescription drugs. One reason prescription drugs are so expensive in the US is because they are so cheap everywhere else. Essentially, the US subsidizes the rest of the world.

The E wrote: It's not that simple though. As this article points out, while pharma companies are quick to trot out R&D costs as a major factor in their pricing structure, they are also spending a ton of money and advertising and lobbying while generating quite generous profit margins; Yes, we europeans have an advantage in that we have legislation limiting drug prices and letting our national insurers do the negotiating for us, but to claim that that's the only reason our prices are so low and yours so high is a bit of a distortion of the facts. Even if we were to pay more for the same drugs, without similar legislative measures on your side, there is no incentive for drug manufacturers to lower prices in the US.

You are correct. It's certainly not simple.

But I don't think you're getting the point. I can almost assure you that even if other countries started to ante up, the increase in windfall most likely WILL NOT result in pharmas lowering their prices. That increased revenue will be used, as an educated guess, ...

1. To further increase their hedge fund against lawsuits. Lawsuits that you obviously don't understand are in a different league over here.

2. Bigger working capitals allow Pharmas to take on research that is so costly it is prohibitive.

People are always crying, "Why isn't there a cure for XXX. Why won't someone take it on?"

Cost! You've got to pay the cost to be the boss. If Americans stop funding R&D with the high drug prices, many new drugs will never be discovered. Companies wouldn't be able to afford the research, nor would they be willing to even go there.

I, cthia, mentioned upstream a new drug with a price tag of $2.1M. Care to guess the cost, and people, and years, to develop that drug? Neither would I. However, what you must not forget is that Pharmas are businesses. And businesses, every business, would like to recoup their development costs. Pharmas like to do it across the board.

As humans, WE DO NOT WANT TO DISCOURAGE PHARMAS FROM SEEKING THE NEXT CURE.

I'd like drugs to be cheaper here in the US, but I don't want the cure to be worse than the original problem.

If you know of any other system in place that has cheap drug costs and can continue to chase the big diseases, I'll vote for it! It's obviously not Germany, because you're relying on our infrastructure. As is most of the world.

.

I just finished reading EXECUTIVE ORDERS by Tom Clancy. The parallels are interesting. However; the Wuhan Virus makes Clancy's version of Ebola seem trivial. Total number of actual cases from intitial aerosol dispersal were only a few thousand with R-0 less than one. However; the Presidential quarantine was far more draconian (ban on interstate travel) and more controversial.

I remain ambivalent about the threat. The numbers on the lethality rate are contradictory. However; at minimum the Wuhan virus is about an order of magnitude more lethal than the common Flu (1% vs 1/10%) rather than >10%. The economic impacts of the quarantines are not inconsequential. Increased poverty will probably kill more people than the virus, but failure to contain it will be even worse. It is also affecting my family directly. My mother-in-law is now sheltering at our house because my brother-in-law was exposed at work. The only Silver lining to this cloud is that traffic congestion is no longer a problem.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: It is also affecting my family directly. My mother-in-law is now sheltering at our house because my brother-in-law was exposed at work.

Sorry to hear that; wish your relatives to stay safe.

Atlantean wrote:Compared to lawsuits in the US, your lawsuits are laughable. There are caps on lawsuits in almost EVERY other country in the world. Including your very own Germany. In fact, certain lawsuits that would, and have, yielded enormous judgements in the US can't even be litigated in the UK. In fact, the lawsuit against PG&E, one of the biggest payouts in American history would have been a different story in your country. Plaintiffs (thousands in this case), cannot sue for medical costs in the UK because your govt. picks up that tab.

Anyway, there is absolutely no comparison between lawsuits. Plus, the laws are different in almost every state in the US. So a defendant can never know what to expect, therefore difficult to fortify against an attack except to fund a huge hedge.

Good to see that you're aware that litigation risks are a problem that can and should be tackled.

You are correct. It's certainly not simple.

But I don't think you're getting the point. I can almost assure you that even if other countries started to ante up, the increase in windfall most likely WILL NOT result in pharmas lowering their prices. That increased revenue will be used, as an educated guess, ...

I would like to refer you to the last sentence of the block you're responding to. "Even if we were to pay more for the same drugs, without similar legislative measures on your side, there is no incentive for drug manufacturers to lower prices in the US."

1. To further increase their hedge fund against lawsuits. Lawsuits that you obviously don't understand are in a different league over here.

2. Bigger working capitals allow Pharmas to take on research that is so costly it is prohibitive.

Oh, I understand quite well the fact that lawsuits are insane in the US. Seems to me that that's something to look at, really.

Also, you forgot 3: Increase profit margins. Drug manufacture is rather profitable; GSK makes about 5 billion pounds on 33 billion pounds of revenue; Pfizer makes 16 billion, Johnson&Johnson about the same... the list goes on. These companies are immensely profitable as things stand right now, they will continue to be profitable as long as they can make their patents last.

Given that level of profitability, even very large settlements (like the 2012 judgement against GSK with its 3 billion USD in damages) are absorbable; these companies certainly seem able to survive them.

Cost! You've got to pay the cost to be the boss. If Americans stop funding R&D with the high drug prices, many new drugs will never be discovered. Companies wouldn't be able to afford the research, nor would they be willing to even go there.

I am still not entirely certain what argument you're trying to make. Are we supposed to stop negotiating prices with these companies? Are our public insurers supposed to care more for the welfare of your precious pharma companies than their ability to pay for the treatments us citizens require?

I, cthia, mentioned upstream a new drug with a price tag of $2.1M. Care to guess the cost, and people, and years, to develop that drug? Neither would I. However, what you must not forget is that Pharmas are businesses. And businesses, every business, would like to recoup their development costs. Pharmas like to do it across the board.

As humans, WE DO NOT WANT TO DISCOURAGE PHARMAS FROM SEEKING THE NEXT CURE.

No, we don't. But neither do we want them to be profiteers.

I mean, I get it. You believe that your current system is the only one that works. What I don't quite understand is that you are clearly capable of seeing that it does have some pretty bad sideeffects, that there are imbalances in there that need correcting, but instead of asking whether or not it could be made better, you're asking us to make our systems worse...?

If you know of any other system in place that has cheap drug costs and can continue to chase the big diseases, I'll vote for it! It's obviously not Germany, because you're relying on our infrastructure. As is most of the world.

Again, and? There's nothing that forces US pharma companies to agree to the terms and conditions we offer to buy their drugs.

While we are dealing with fairness and spreadsheets here, I don't begrudge pharma a decent profit. But when does it move from a decent profit to price gouging? The R&D argument is always advanced. But what percentage of Pharma's income is actually spent on R&D? The businessman's answer is that a thing is worth whatever a fool will pay for it. But does that really work out when someone's life is dependent on a product but that can't afford to pay for it?

No one would deny that our economic system is good at fords and chevys. I wander around the dealers lot and ooh and aah at all of the bright new goodies. Then I wistfully get real and head for the used car lot hunting for something with good wear left in it that can be had at a price I can afford. The point is, I have that choice.

With drugs, that may well not be true. I could well be over a barrel. The same system used for the manufacture, the sales and distribution of cars doesn't work nearly so well when my life is on the line.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:
...drugs, that may well not be true. I could well be over a barrel. The same system used for the manufacture, the sales and distribution of cars doesn't work nearly so well when my life is on the line.
Don-

It will be interesting to read a continuation of this discussion in; I fervently hope the near future when a vaccine for the current virus is developed, tested and put on the market.
Whoever, or whatever pharmaceutical lab that does come up with it, will not only have you; but yours truly at age 74, but literally the whole world over a barrel.
With a potential market of 5-6 billion, the profits on a patent would be almost incalculable.
Salk’s polio vaccine, and later Sabin’s further refinement, would be nothing in comparison.

Arol wrote:

n7axw wrote:
...drugs, that may well not be true. I could well be over a barrel. The same system used for the manufacture, the sales and distribution of cars doesn't work nearly so well when my life is on the line.
Don-

It will be interesting to read a continuation of this discussion in; I fervently hope the near future when a vaccine for the current virus is developed, tested and put on the market.
Whoever, or whatever pharmaceutical lab that does come up with it, will not only have you; but yours truly at age 74, but literally the whole world over a barrel.
With a potential market of 5-6 billion, the profits on a patent would be almost incalculable.
Salk’s polio vaccine, and later Sabin’s further refinement, would be nothing in comparison.

Realisticly in about 18 months for the vaccine. I don't know, but I suspect that the pressure to make it widely available with public funding will be enormous. I don't think that they will be able to keep it to themselves.

We are the same age, by the way...

Don

-

Arol wrote:

n7axw wrote:
...drugs, that may well not be true. I could well be over a barrel. The same system used for the manufacture, the sales and distribution of cars doesn't work nearly so well when my life is on the line.
Don-

It will be interesting to read a continuation of this discussion in; I fervently hope the near future when a vaccine for the current virus is developed, tested and put on the market.
Whoever, or whatever pharmaceutical lab that does come up with it, will not only have you; but yours truly at age 74, but literally the whole world over a barrel.
With a potential market of 5-6 billion, the profits on a patent would be almost incalculable.
Salk’s polio vaccine, and later Sabin’s further refinement, would be nothing in comparison.

In case you have not noticed, President Trump has been doing some serious, behind the scenes ass kicking. GM was told point blank that an idled factory would be retasked to manufacture ventilators or it would be seized through eminent domain. This is from a very pro business President. Any pharmaceutical company that developed a vaccine will keep their prices reasonable.

BTW, Trump did suggest that the US might buy that German company that might have vaccine. The purpose was to ensure that Americans got the vaccine, not to deny it to others. Might also want to avert an Achilles Choice scenario.