>>>>>>>>>>>>I'd like to see a system of health care, organized by the community at any level, even if it's through its government, as a non-profit, running at cost price, and not as a retail outlet for the pharmaceuticals. There's something deeply wrong when they make money from one's illness, and have a financial incentive to grow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why would any company invest million of dollars in research to develop life savings drugs if they are not going to reap a profit from it? Part of the cause of the high cost of drugs is the limited amount of time that the governement allows them to be patented before the makers of generics (who have invested nothing in the R&D) come along and make a profit on the work of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If the length of time that a patent stayed in force was longer, the drugs could be cheaper because the manufacturers would have a longer period of time in which to recover their investment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't mind them making a profit. I mind them making an OBSCENE profit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Imagine if a person or a company comes up with the true cure for cancer. Do you mind if they make OBSENE, OBSENE, OBSENE profit?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yup, I do
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>For a cure for cancer? I can't think of anything more deserving than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The developers still aren't 'deserving' of an obscene profit on it, no. Most of the major advancements in medicine (up to the last 30 years or so) were made by people who weren't looking at the bottom line. They were looking to find remedies for diseases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I want to expand on your point. Most of the basic research done in this country for quite a long time has been at least partially funded by tax dollars (NSF, NIH, etc.). When a pharmaceutical company comes up with a new medication, they're generally building on that research. Sure, they deserve to make a profit, but they didn't do it on their own. They started out with knowledge that we all paid for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>
>>>>>Just for the record, I'm not saying that the pharmacos shouldn't make a profit, I'm just saying they shouldn't make an obscene profit.
>>>>
>>>>Oddly enough, I agree with you :P
>>>
>>>Oddly enough I disagree with both of you. Some things are worth the super obscen profits. Example. Say a researcher works on finding a cure for cancer, 20 year, or maybe 2 months. She finds the cure; validates it with 100% certainty. Then she says; unless I get 10 billion dollars I won't share my findings with the world. Of course, being that messiah won't apply water boarding, what do you do? I would give her 10 billion and then take her to dinner <g>.
>>
>>So who paid this researcher all that time? Who supported the validation of the cure? Almost nothing in experimental science (as opposed to theoretical science) is the work of a single person.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Of course people (note that I don't say Government because Government simply takes people's money and passes it around) pay the researcher. I send charity to research companies. I am sure you do too. But I my point is that no matter who pays and whether it is an individual or a company they should have the right to put the price for their product according to what market bears (the price should not be controlled by the Government, Period.)

How can who pays not matter? If most of the cost of developing the product was paid for by taxpayers, why should the people/company involved be given free rein to set the price?

Try this analogy. Taxpayers pay for most road construction. What if the contractors hired with that money decided to put a toll on the road? Would that be okay because they'd done the actual work?

> I don't know which company produces Lipitor and Viagra but I understand they made billions in profits selling these drugs. And rightly so; they have improved the lives of millions of men. Of course for myself I will say that my cholesterol level is fine without any medication <bg>.

I don't think anyone here is saying that pharma shouldn't make profits. This issue is how much. What's reasonable given that virtually every pharma product is based on research for which we, the people, paid.

And yeah, I do donate to some organizations that support research. But I'm reasonably sure (as the granddaughter, daughter, niece, and mother of research scientists) that the lion's share of research funding comes from the government. I couldn't turn up comparative stats with a quick search, but I do see that for FY11, NSF plus NIH research funding was in the range of $37 billion. That's not all biological/medical research, but that's a lot of money. Some of it goes directly to pharma for research, much goes to universities and research centers.

Tamar