Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 234: Epsteins;Gate

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do medical corporations make obscene amounts of money? It's not clear to me right now how much the of high drug costs goes towards profit and how much goes towards offsetting high development costs.
---

pyresword posted...

Do medical corporations make obscene amounts of money? It's not clear to me right now how much the of high drug costs goes towards profit and how much goes towards offsetting high costs.

Obscene.
---

pyresword posted...

Do medical corporations make obscene amounts of money? It's not clear to me right now how much the of high drug costs goes towards profit and how much goes towards offsetting high development costs.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=BdtRXeyKHo7z0wL1yLfABw&q=pharmaceutical+profits&oq=pharmaceutical+profits

pick an article.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Not what I'm saying. Do you think that a pharmaceutical company should be obligated to do research if the expected profit is negative? You have to average in all of the times when they waste money developing a useless drug to decide if the profits are "obscene."

If theyre posting billion dollar profits every single year, those instances of wasted money arent really making a dent in their bottom line.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

pyresword posted...

You could argue that the federal government should pay for it

ding ding ding

This is the best solution yes but it would be incredibly expensive and I could see several issues coming from it.

1) No longer incentivized to study rare or difficult diseases.
2) So much of this would be labeled as "waste" when it really isn't that. 99% of the drugs the government would study would fail. That's just the way it is. Not enough people understand how the drug industry works to view this as normal, and not a failure on the part of the government.
3) Scientists are selfish people, just like most people are selfish people. You would lose some of the top minds to study R&D in fields where they could make more money (for example, the VA has a harder time keeping doctors because they get paid more in the private sector. It would be the same thing for scientists here who could make more doing something else).

I agree that something can and should be done. I just don't think it is as easy as some people may think.
---

I dont think anyone is saying it will be easy.

---

red13n posted...

pyresword posted...

Do medical corporations make obscene amounts of money? It's not clear to me right now how much the of high drug costs goes towards profit and how much goes towards offsetting high development costs.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=BdtRXeyKHo7z0wL1yLfABw&q=pharmaceutical+profits&oq=pharmaceutical+profits

pick an article.

Well, from the first article that came up from forbes, it seems to indicate that they DON'T make particularly large profits. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2018/01/23/about-those-soaring-pharma-profits/#342e2ef3f9db)

[This quote is from a Pharma CEO take with a grain of salt] Is this industry obscenely profitable? There is no evidence of that. If you look at our return on investment, our return on capital, if you look at our P/E, if you look at anything inside this industry looking at the Bloomberg indices we are in the middle.

Thats a pretty good speech, but in an era of fake news, how accurate are Reads comments? Actually, available data* are pretty supportive. The average return on equity for key industries from 2014 2016 shows that biopharmas profits stand at 16.2%, significantly lower than Computer Sciences (31.6%), Beverages (27.4%), Aerospace/Defense (23.0%), and Trucking (19.1%) while modestly higher than Software System/Applications (15.2%) and Healthcare Support Services (14.4%).

Another measure, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is even more telling. IRR calculates the sales/cash flows resulting from R&D investments, ties R&D and the returns it generates together, and is a more appropriate metric for biopharma productivity. Deloitte reports that the IRR for biopharma R&D has been steadily falling from 10.1% in 2010 to 3.2% in 2017. Even Wall Street hasnt bought into the pharma soaring profits view. Since February 1, 2014, while the Dow has risen 63%, the stock prices of a number of major pharma companies have been muted with Pfizer and Bristol-Myers each growing by about 15%, and Merck and AstraZeneca by roughly 6.5%. Even Lillys growth of 43% still lags the Dow.

---

Reg posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

he brings up that a lot of drug research is funded by the government, and therefore public tax money, and so the public should be able to more easily benefit from the results.

Abso-fucking-lutely

Kind of sort of but he misunderstands the scientific process here.

Research is funded by the government, and a lot of drugs are developed here. The testing for these drugs is something along the lines of "hey look this did this in this cell line and it shows promise for something down the line". That is where government funding goes primarily to in the US. You'll hear news stories of these things as "THE NEXT BIG BREAKTHROUGH IN TACKLING DISEASE X" from CNN and then you'll likely hear nothing else. This is where almost all of government funding goes into at the moment. A very important step, but relatively cheap in comparison.

Because that is where the pharmaceutical companies come in. And they have to go through multiple phases of the clinical trials. I don't remember all of them off the top of my head, but it is like 1. efficacy in animals 2. efficacy in humans 3. safety in humans 4. long term safety in humans. Something along those lines. And tons of these things just fail and you get no money back. Again, this isn't like a car. You make a bad car, you sell a bit of the car and recoup some nominal cash. A "bad" drug gets studied for six years and it could fail at that last step and suddenly you've just "wasted" a ton of money (again, not that the drug is bad or that the money is wasted, but from an investor standpoint it is).

Currently industry founds anywhere from 6-10 times more clinical trails than the government because of how absurdly expensive this is. Government does almost all of the work at the beginning, industry does almost all of the work at the end.
---

Nobody is saying it's easy to fix, but nobody should be saying "This is how it should be, everything's good" either.
---

Yeah, it's going to be really hard getting past all of the lobbying and corruption in Washington don't we know it.
---

Comparing lifesaving products to commercial goods is a bad measurement, just look at their bottom line.

According to Google, the pharmaceutical industry is on track to make a trillion dollars in profit, and thats after spending only 17% of their revenue on R&D.

I wish I saved the link, but Im on mobile and thought I copied it but didnt. I can google for it again later.
---

Profit motive already kills the desire to study rare or difficult diseases, as unless those diseases are exclusively the realm of the wealthy you have a smaller pool that will be paying for your drugs and can make you back the profit you spent on the development. And elimination of the private sector gets rid of the flight from the private sector - nationalize any sector necessary for the common good. Who cares if people don't understand or think it wasteful? People think our military budget is wasteful, but it only increases, because the government doesn't represent people, it represents profit, and that is the rot that has infected every inch of our society. A profit motive will kill us all in the name of the bottom line.

---

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-40

We looked into changes in the drug industry and found that pharmaceutical and biotechnology sales revenue increased from $534 billion to $775 billion between 2006 and 2015. Additionally, 67% of drug companies increased their annual profit margins during the same periodwith margins up to 20 percent for some companies in certain years. Drug industry spending for research and development increased from $82 billion in 2008 to $89 billion in 2014.

Massive profits, little investment in research.
---

Oh wow like 5 posts in a row from people who have no idea how the pharmaceutical industry, particularly R&D, works. I don't even know where to begin.

Let me just take the most egregious thing that was stated, which is that little to no progress is made for rare diseases because the companies lack financial incentive. This is just demonstrably false. The literal trajectory of big pharma is in rare and orphan diseases. Almost every new cancer indication is for a rare mutation nowadays as personalized medicine advances. But let's just keep spouting Jill stein-esque bullshit to sound informed and edgy.
---

Secondly, R&D is a small percentage of the cost of bringing a drug to market. It costs between one and two billion dollars to get a drug from preclinical and clinical trials (R&D) through FDA and EMEA approvals (this takes years) and finally marketed and distributed to providers. Looking at just "R&D" is a misleading way to read profit margins.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Reg posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

he brings up that a lot of drug research is funded by the government, and therefore public tax money, and so the public should be able to more easily benefit from the results.

Abso-fucking-lutely

Kind of sort of but he misunderstands the scientific process here.

Research is funded by the government, and a lot of drugs are developed here. The testing for these drugs is something along the lines of "hey look this did this in this cell line and it shows promise for something down the line". That is where government funding goes primarily to in the US. You'll hear news stories of these things as "THE NEXT BIG BREAKTHROUGH IN TACKLING DISEASE X" from CNN and then you'll likely hear nothing else. This is where almost all of government funding goes into at the moment. A very important step, but relatively cheap in comparison.

Because that is where the pharmaceutical companies come in. And they have to go through multiple phases of the clinical trials. I don't remember all of them off the top of my head, but it is like 1. efficacy in animals 2. efficacy in humans 3. safety in humans 4. long term safety in humans. Something along those lines. And tons of these things just fail and you get no money back. Again, this isn't like a car. You make a bad car, you sell a bit of the car and recoup some nominal cash. A "bad" drug gets studied for six years and it could fail at that last step and suddenly you've just "wasted" a ton of money (again, not that the drug is bad or that the money is wasted, but from an investor standpoint it is).

Currently industry founds anywhere from 6-10 times more clinical trails than the government because of how absurdly expensive this is. Government does almost all of the work at the beginning, industry does almost all of the work at the end.

A good post. Thank you.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Comparing lifesaving products to commercial goods is a bad measurement

You have the smartest people in the world working on these products after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their educations. Why do you expect that they shouldn't be compensated? Unless you're suggesting that the government pay their salaries for the public good?
---

Also why is everyone crying about drug prices? We're in the middle of a REVOLUTIONARY period in human history in which there are medical breakthroughs yearly because of this very system.

HIV will be nonexistent in a generation because of it. Cancer will be cured by the end of the century because of it. Trying to dismantle this system is risking everything.
---

Mr "I spent $1500 on a meal" trying to lecture us on "no really drug companies really need to charge this much."

Miss me with that shit.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Also why is everyone crying about drug prices? We're in the middle of a REVOLUTIONARY period in human history in which there are medical breakthroughs yearly because of this very system.

HIV will be nonexistent in a generation because of it. Cancer will be cured by the end of the century because of it. Trying to dismantle this system is risking everything.

Because people are dying

Easy answer.
---

"people spent a lot of money on their education"

Ah yes this theoretical Sanders administration that is passing medicare for all is also a nation where student debt is still a big concern!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Also why is everyone crying about drug prices? We're in the middle of a REVOLUTIONARY period in human history in which there are medical breakthroughs yearly because of this very system.

HIV will be nonexistent in a generation because of it. Cancer will be cured by the end of the century because of it. Trying to dismantle this system is risking everything.

Because people are dying

Easy answer.

People are living longer than ever because of the pharma industry. Across the board.
---

And they will live even longer when we give them still a lot of profits.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

And they will live even longer when we give them still a lot of profits.

Yes punishing the industry that is saving lives will surely help save even more lives.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

People are living longer than ever because of the pharma industry.

The past two years, life expectancy has decreased in the US.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Mr "I spent $1500 on a meal" trying to lecture us on "no really drug companies really need to charge this much."

Miss me with that shit.

Bernie Sanders is much wealthier than me
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

People are living longer than ever because of the pharma industry.

The past two years, life expectancy has decreased in the US.

Because of suicide and drug addiction. The US has the highest cancer survival rates on the planet.
---

Profiting less to benefit society is not a punishment, and someone who got into medical research should want to help other people live longer. If they got into it because of an expectation of obscene profits, I don't care if they are disappointed.

---

Nrrr posted...

Profiting less to benefit society is not a punishment, and someone who got into medical research should want to help other people live longer. If they got into it because of an expectation of obscene profits, I don't care if they are disappointed.

That's a nice utopian thought, but people generally do not want to be compensated in back-patting.
---

Do you want to tell oncologists that they should be cutting their salaries in half because it's unethical to make $700k/year?
---

Everyone is compensated for their work in my ideal society. The more left you go, the less selfish motivations must be, because you are guaranteed certain standards of living. In a free for all capitalist society, of course people are selfish in their motivation, nobody has their back and they could die penniless and homeless and nobody will care. It's not a community, it's a business. You have to look out for yourself because nobody else is. But if you guarantee housing, education, healthcare, and a minimum standard of living, people are more free, happier, and society would benefit from it far more than our current system. It's not utopian, our world is brutal and hellish, it's just better than what it is now.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The US has the highest cancer survival rates on the planet.

Depends on the cancer, and we make up for it by lagging in other common causes of death like heart disease and circulatory issues. Not to mention the level of overtreatment we do to patients for the sake of, you guessed it, profit. Giving patients $200k monthly treatments that merely add another 3-4 months to life expency while making sure people can't afford basic insulin is not "cancer will be cured by the end of the century."
---

Nrrr posted...

Everyone is compensated for their work in my ideal society. The more left you go, the less selfish motivations must be, because you are guaranteed certain standards of living. In a free for all capitalist society, of course people are selfish in their motivation, nobody has their back and they could die penniless and homeless and nobody will care. It's not a community, it's a business. You have to look out for yourself because nobody else is. But if you guarantee housing, education, healthcare, and a minimum standard of living, people are more free, happier, and society would benefit from it far more than our current system. It's not utopian, our world is brutal and hellish, it's just better than what it is now.

But who is going to pay for it? If I'm going to be taxed in the stratosphere and my basic needs are guaranteed, I might just not work and go on permanent vacation.
---

Nrrr posted...

Profiting less to benefit society is not a punishment, and someone who got into medical research should want to help other people live longer. If they got into it because of an expectation of obscene profits, I don't care if they are disappointed.

What if the people who want obscene profits are developing half of the new medicines and procedures that save lives? I would care if they are going to quit.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The US has the highest cancer survival rates on the planet.

Depends on the cancer, and we make up for it by lagging in other common causes of death like heart disease and circulatory issues. Not to mention the level of overtreatment we do to patients for the sake of, you guessed it, profit. Giving patients $200k monthly treatments that merely add another 3-4 months to life expency while making sure people can't afford basic insulin is not "cancer will be cured by the end of the century."

You are conflating isolated sob stories with systemic issues. There are far more efficient ways to solve the problems that you think exist in the industry (rightfully or not). But if you start to dismantle the core incentive structure of the pharmaceutical industry, you risk curtailing the path of scientific progress that we're on.

And yes, cancer will be cured for all intents and purposes within the century. Even Joe Biden has stated this in his speech at ASCO several years ago.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Even Joe Biden has stated this in his speech at ASCO several years ago.

Cool, the guy who thinks poor people are as smart as white people and his favorite non-presidential figure is Thomas Jefferson and thinks he was VP during the Parkland shootings is a very reliable source.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Even Joe Biden has stated this in his speech at ASCO several years ago.

Cool, the guy who thinks poor people are as smart as white people and his favorite non-presidential figure is Thomas Jefferson and thinks he was VP during the Parkland shootings is a very reliable source.

Cancer research was the #1 issue he championed as VP because his son died of cancer. He's a legit advocate for this stuff--like Al Gore with climate change.
---

AND the guy who thinks his website is called "joe 30330"
---

Question for the topic: would you prefer it if society discovered half as many new treatments, and in exchange the people making them were only doing so out of pure altruism? Because that seems to be the logic behind the its fundamentally bad that people profit off of healthcare.

Im much more sympathetic to the idea that it might not be worth the increased prices now, but the fact that there is a tradeoff shouldnt be controversial.

---

red sox 777 posted...

But who is going to pay for it? If I'm going to be taxed in the stratosphere and my basic needs are guaranteed, I might just not work and go on permanent vacation.

Society will pay for it. This isn't difficult. I mean, I guess the very idea of a society is actually difficult for Americans to grasp, but it's all very doable. You will work, I don't know any left wing thought process where the capable do not work. It's right wing government that has that. Capitalists don't work. Unemployed don't work. UBI is a libertarian proposal. If you are capable and working age, you will work. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Bernie wants to pass a job guarantee, that's what a left wing society is offering you. We will all work, together, to create something great. If people ran on real left wing rhetoric and not lib bullshit that would be the message.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Question for the topic: would you prefer it if society discovered half as many new treatments, and in exchange the people making them were only doing so out of pure altruism? Because that seems to be the logic behind the its fundamentally bad that people profit off of healthcare.

Im much more sympathetic to the idea that it might not be worth the increased prices now, but the fact that there is a tradeoff shouldnt be controversial.

No because we've seen unimaginable progress under our current system that has done more for humanity than anything else besides the green revolution
---

https://twitter.com/Melis_Strategic/status/1160523218966523904?s=19

God this is the most beautiful thing I've seen in awhile
---

Leftists: everyone should work to create a better society for all
Liberals: anyone making less than 30k a year who starts a business for the disabled within the city limits of Reno will get a reduction in their parking ticket costs if operating a fuel efficient vehicle

Hard to say which will be better at mobilizing the votes

---

Nrrr posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But who is going to pay for it? If I'm going to be taxed in the stratosphere and my basic needs are guaranteed, I might just not work and go on permanent vacation.

Society will pay for it. This isn't difficult. I mean, I guess the very idea of a society is actually difficult for Americans to grasp, but it's all very doable. You will work, I don't know any left wing thought process where the capable do not work. It's right wing government that has that. Capitalists don't work. Unemployed don't work. UBI is a libertarian proposal. If you are capable and working age, you will work. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Bernie wants to pass a job guarantee, that's what a left wing society is offering you. We will all work, together, to create something great. If people ran on real left wing rhetoric and not lib bullshit that would be the message.

So if I just quit working, how is society going to make me work? Send me to a reeducation camp in Siberia?
---

For such a cynical person, cyclo is awfully optimistic about society's ability to function on pure altruism.
---

It's up to society to decide how to enforce things, but I think it's important to note that Siberia has beautiful summers!

---

a society where everyone is forced to work sounds rather dystopian tbqh.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

You have the smartest people in the world working on these products after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their educations. Why do you expect that they shouldn't be compensated? Unless you're suggesting that the government pay their salaries for the public good?

I mean... most people in research aren't compensated fairly after spending their money on education. You have to accept being underpaid for over a decade to even start getting paid what you're worth. It really isn't any wonder research scientists become profit-driven under this system, and even then it is the people at the top and the massive corporation owners who stand to benefit.

So...yeah, there should be more funding for researchers and less profit hoarding?
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

You have the smartest people in the world working on these products after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their educations. Why do you expect that they shouldn't be compensated? Unless you're suggesting that the government pay their salaries for the public good?

I mean... most people in research aren't compensated fairly after spending their money on education. You have to accept being underpaid for over a decade to even start getting paid what you're worth. It really isn't any wonder research scientists become profit-driven under this system, and even then it is the people at the top and the massive corporation owners who stand to benefit.

So...yeah, there should be more funding for researchers and less profit hoarding?

A fair but entirely different argument
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Question for the topic: would you prefer it if society discovered half as many new treatments, and in exchange the people making them were only doing so out of pure altruism? Because that seems to be the logic behind the its fundamentally bad that people profit off of healthcare.

No, dude, how is this the only way you can see this?

Researchers and manufacturers can still be paid for their work, literally no less treatments need to be discovered or produced.
---