"Universal Access"

[rmt]

That's quite a shift from saying "there hasn't been much innovation going on in the pharmaceutical industry in the last few decades" to saying "where are the wonder drugs?". It's the FDA that's become more risk averse. Drug companies waste billions trying to push through that red tape even for products that have no negative consequences considering the alternative is death for users.

The concept of low hanging fruit seems to escape you as well. I suppose there has been no automotive innovation since the automobile was invented, since it's just modifying the existing auto from year to year.

Gotta say that I love that backup camera. Dh despaired every time I used to hit something backing up in the minivan :-)

[Th'Pusher]

Gotta say that I love that backup camera. Dh despaired every time I used to hit something backing up in the minivan :-)

Let me guess, you don't like the fact the NHTSA issued a rule effectively requiring them on all new vehicles?

[rmt]

Let me guess, you don't like the fact the NHTSA issued a rule effectively requiring them on all new vehicles?

What is with you? Do you have to be snarky about everything I post? It was just an innocent comment. But you asked for it.

I love the backup camera - I love innovation and I love that compe ion forces innovation at still decent prices. Car prices have not gone up anywhere near house prices.

[Th'Pusher]

What is with you? Do you have to be snarky about everything I post? It was just an innocent comment. But you asked for it.

I love the backup camera - I love innovation and I love that compe ion forces innovation at still decent prices. Car prices have not gone up anywhere near house prices.

I read and don't respond to most of your posts rmt.

[rmt]

Can't pick up Timmy's jersey retirement. Would someone PLEASE record and post?

[rmt]

Can't pick up Timmy's jersey retirement. Would someone PLEASE record and post?

It's okay. Seems like it'll be on NBATV.

[DMC]

Can't pick up Timmy's jersey retirement. Would someone PLEASE record and post?

I'll summarize:

It was cool, Th'Pusher is a got. I'm out. Peace.

[DMC]

Not really. I qualified my comment on innovation with "They've mainly delivered slight variances on existing drugs to make them marginally better."



So has R&D slowed to a crawl? Your initial claim was that R&D would slow to a crawl absent the profit motive. My argument is that we are not getting good ROI on pharmaceutical companies' R&D because the profit motive discourages innovation of new ideas as they are risky and expensive. Instead, they're protecting profits by raising prices on patented drugs while delaying the expiration of drug exclusivity wherever possible and even paying generic drug makers to not develop generic versions.



Not lost on me at all. It's fine, but it's pretty much all pharmaceutical companies are doing which is my point.

A: Look up "innovation"
B: Which socialist country develops all the "wonder drugs"? List the top 10.



btw, those other countries... that's "slowing to a crawl". It's not some nebulous concept you can glean from a quick trip to Google results page.


C: Talk to Magic Johnson

[Th'Pusher]

A: Look up "innovation"
B: Which socialist country develops all the "wonder drugs"? List the top 10.



btw, those other countries... that's "slowing to a crawl". It's not some nebulous concept you can glean from a quick trip to Google results page.


C: Talk to Magic Johnson

You're making my point for me. Show me a trend line of number of NCEs developed by decade.

[ElNono]

I don't think the two need to be bifurcated. Were it not for profit motive, R&D would slow to a crawl. Imagine the federal government doing all the R&D and approving of their own findings through the FDA, then the caregivers who are also at some GS level administering the care. Profit drives innovation so unless you expect people to suddenly change and be as philanthropic as their blogs make them out to be, we have to work with the current mindset of profit first. Even the billionaires got rich before delving into philanthropy.

Citizen well being is first and foremost up to the citizen. If we could be fixed for free regardless the ailment, why would we ever alter our lifestyles? That's a reductionist argument against the current ACA, because we cannot be fixed of all ailments but we can live sloppy and still have the effects buffered by medical care.

It makes no difference whether "we" decide one way or the other, the profit motive drives the train and we are passengers.

It doesn't have to be all government either, and plenty of innovation coming from countries where healthcare isn't driven solely by profit motive. Heck, there's a load of government funded research (and that's not just on healthcare).

And yes there's an instrinsic bifurcation because they're intrinsically competing interests: what's good for a company and its fiduciary duty to its shareholders doesn't necessarily aligns (at least all the time) with the state interest in the citizenship well-being.

Now that doesn't mean that the solution has to be one or the other, and as a matter of fact it's actually not in most every country not named the US: there's an ample gamut of gray, where neither side will get all they want but they'll find something they both can live with. The US is probably the last bastion where this largely does not happen, but I personally think it has a lot more to do with ideology than practicality.

Anyhow, I would have liked to expand more but it will have to wait until after the holidays

[DMC]

You're making my point for me. Show me a trend line of number of NCEs developed by decade.

Really? Making your point? Which country is developing more than the US? None. Where's your "empirical evidence" that socialist agenda healthcare would churn out more or better cures/treatments? I realize you're always going to look to cherry pick an aspect of an argument where you think you can find refuge, however I'm throwing this empirical evidence thing right back in your face. Which of the countries in the list are social agenda driven vs profit driven?

Also, you said there's been almost none in a few decades. Care to explain how that chart illustrates "almost none"? Or did you mean that a few decades is actually only about 11 years?

[boutons_deux]

BigPharma spends twice as much on marketing (esp corrupting docs) as it does on research. yearS ago that was $60B vs $30B

Most of the "new" drugs are old drugs tweaked to extend the patent, and they don't really work better. And lots of drugs of ing marginally effective, useless, or harmful. Repug FDA will maim and kill Ms of people by waiving through untested BigPharma even quicker than now.

And of course, BigPharma charges more USA for the drugs 2x to 100x more in USA than in all industrial countries that regulate drug prices.

Defending BigPharma? G M A F B.

As corrupt and ty and wealth-sucking as BigFinance.

btw, did y'all see Wells Fargo got caught yet again selling insurance policies secretly to clients, collecting the sales commission, then the policies lapse because the in-the-dark clients don't pay the first premium.

[Th'Pusher]

Really? Making your point? Which country is developing more than the US? None. Where's your "empirical evidence" that socialist agenda healthcare would churn out more or better cures/treatments? I realize you're always going to look to cherry pick an aspect of an argument where you think you can find refuge, however I'm throwing this empirical evidence thing right back in your face. Which of the countries in the list are social agenda driven vs profit driven?

Also, you said there's been almost none in a few decades. Care to explain how that chart illustrates "almost none"? Or did you mean that a few decades is actually only about 11 years?

I don't know what point you think you're refuting. I never said any country developed more than the US.

We were discussing profit motive and R&D. But, do you honestly think companies like Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline or Bayer are not looking to make a profit because they're based in more socially democratic countries than the US?

You're unraveling. Maybe you should go practice your arguments in the NBA forum

[DMC]

I don't know what point you think you're refuting. I never said any country developed more than the US.

We were discussing profit motive and R&D. But, do you honestly think companies like Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline or Bayer are not looking to make a profit because they're based in more socially democratic countries than the US?

You're unraveling. Maybe you should go practice your arguments in the NBA forum

You state that innovation is basically nil in the past few decades, I showed you different. Then you moved the goalpost to a decline, but its a global decline not in innovation but in products approved for sale. How does that go against my statement that removing the profit motive would slow R&D to a crawl?

Once again you interject with nothing to offer.

[Th'Pusher]

You state that innovation is basically nil in the past few decades, I showed you different. Then you moved the goalpost to a decline, but its a global decline not in innovation but in products approved for sale. How does that go against my statement that removing the profit motive would slow R&D to a crawl?

Once again you interject with nothing to offer.

I have already explained how the profit motive actually disincentivises innovation of new ideas because they're both expensive and risky. My initial comment on innovation was couched in the context of pharmaceutical companies' R&D budget primarily going to marginally improving existing drugs. No goal post move.

[DMC]

I have already explained how the profit motive actually disincentivises innovation of new ideas because they're both expensive and risky. My initial comment on innovation was couched in the context of pharmaceutical companies' R&D budget primarily going to marginally improving existing drugs. No goal post move.

lol.. OK Chumpdumper, let's go 12 pages of you denying your original statement and deflecting with baseless opinion poorly disguised as scientific conclusion..

[spurraider21]

It's always interesting seeing non-medical people whether it's in the government or here talk about how to fix healthcare.

its always interesting to see us non-coaches talk about sports strategy

[Th'Pusher]

lol.. OK Chumpdumper, let's go 12 pages of you denying your original statement and deflecting with baseless opinion poorly disguised as scientific conclusion..

There hasn't been much innovation going on in the pharmaceutical industry in the last few decades. They've mainly delivered slight variances on existing drugs to make them marginally better. Much of the money they spend on R&D goes to paying doctors to validate the effectiveness of a product and paying to keep exclusive rights and evergreening the few cash cows they have left.

No need. My initial comment is right there ^ for all the world to read.

[TeyshaBlue]

I have already explained how the profit motive actually disincentivises innovation of new ideas because they're both expensive and risky. My initial comment on innovation was couched in the context of pharmaceutical companies' R&D budget primarily going to marginally improving existing drugs. No goal post move.

And artificially creating a market/need through a meticulously crafted ad campain for bogus conditions. EPI? What utter bull .

[DMC]

No need. My initial comment is right there ^ for all the world to read.

Yes, and so is the fact you ignored that the US is far and away the largest innovator in the world. Show me a system of non profit that has anything close to the innovation that the US has, in any field.

You committed a fallacy by suggesting that, because wonder drug creation as a whole has decreased, it wouldn't be that much worse with a non-profit motive.

If drug creation was 1000 in 1950's and dropped to 500 in the 1960's, you could say that it slowed to a crawl then even though you haven't defined what it even means. What you couldn't honestly do is what you did, which is to say there has been almost no innovation even if you try to qualify it with a disclaimer. You cannot simply disclaim a contradiction like that as if it's a caveat.

There has been no innovation in the automotive industry, only small changes in shape, design, powerplant, brakes, safety features and accessories of the vehicle.

[Adam Lambert]

its true, we do have the best boner meds

[DMC]

There hasn't been much innovation going on in the pharmaceutical industry in the last few decades. They've mainly delivered slight variances on existing drugs to make them marginally better. Much of the money they spend on R&D goes to paying doctors to validate the effectiveness of a product and paying to keep exclusive rights and evergreening the few cash cows they have left.

Few = 3 or more. It doesn't equal 2 decades. Otherwise it would be "a couple".

Much, many, few, marginally, mainly... these are some of your crutches in your arguments. They allow you to slop around and dodge any corners you've painted yourself into. That kind of tactic reeks of just laziness. I expect to see these now and again, however you rely too heavily on them. It tells me you don't know anything.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes, and so is the fact you ignored that the US is far and away the largest innovator in the world. Show me a system of non profit that has anything close to the innovation that the US has, in any field.

Countries don't create new drugs. Companies do. The first point, which I already made, was that non-US companies are also operating under the profit motive when it comes to investing in R&D. The second point, did you take into account the number of pharmaceutical companies headquartered in in each country when using the number of new chemical en ies invented as a measure of innovation?

You committed a fallacy by suggesting that, because wonder drug creation as a whole has decreased, it wouldn't be that much worse with a non-profit motive.

If drug creation was 1000 in 1950's and dropped to 500 in the 1960's, you could say that it slowed to a crawl then even though you haven't defined what it even means. What you couldn't honestly do is what you did, which is to say there has been almost no innovation even if you try to qualify it with a disclaimer. You cannot simply disclaim a contradiction like that as if it's a caveat.

There has been no innovation in the automotive industry, only small changes in shape, design, powerplant, brakes, safety features and accessories of the vehicle.

Incorrect. I explained why the profit motive is a disincentive to new ideas because they are expensive and risky. Instead, companies prefer to spend their R&D marginally improving existing drugs while evergreening drugs still under patent.

[Th'Pusher]

Few = 3 or more. It doesn't equal 2 decades. Otherwise it would be "a couple".

Much, many, few, marginally, mainly... these are some of your crutches in your arguments. They allow you to slop around and dodge any corners you've painted yourself into. That kind of tactic reeks of just laziness. I expect to see these now and again, however you rely too heavily on them. It tells me you don't know anything.

I use these words as qualifiers because I am recalling information I have read and I do not have the time, nor the desire to go look up specifics. You can call it lazy. That's fine. Still, you have posted zero evidence to convince anyone (other than maybe WC) that the profit motive drives innovation in the current pharmaceutical industry. Your new chemical en y chart by country was pathetic.