Drug-makers paying off competitors to keep cheap generics off market

The fact that you didn't spell capitalism correctly makes me question whether you actually know what it even entails.

Your response Libertyforall is so predicted, your kind will not fair to well at the gallows!

Fare well, Kenny, fare well is what you mean.

Does no one have a spell check on their computer?

kenny,

Who is my kind? People who support the Constitution? I have a feeling there are a good number of "my kind."

You keep fighting to bring about the glorious Marxist revolution to this country.

thecoyote23,

I can only hope you were trying to take a partisan hack shot at conservatives and not really believing what you wrote.

There is no free market in the pharmaceutical business. You must believe every left wing talking point that comes your way. Government regulation is what is harming the pharmaceutical industry.

Regulations from government agencies like the FDA raise the cost of pharmaceutical products by about 80% while pushing most life saving drugs back by more than a decade. This includes cheap generic medication. Don't forget about government regulations stopping hte importation of drugs from Canada.

Yeah, sounds like a free market to me.

Yes, because we ought to just give people anything that big pharma comes up with.

That regulation that you are talking about keeps people from getting drugs that kill them or are completely ineffective. It's not a simplistic clearing system, because the corrections don't just involve lost dollars, jobs, or market share. No, market corrections in the pharmaceutical industry involve people losing their lives, or becoming permanently handicapped in some way.

Some free markets are natural, others are impossible without regulation, and others shouldn't be free markets in the first place.

Unfortunately, it's people like you who get their ideas from partisan "talking points". I on the other hand develop my arguments based on research databases and these funny things called "books". I can tell simply from your defense of anti-regulatory ideology that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are repeating the same Reagan Revolution rhetoric that all Neo-cons do these days. I doubt you even know what the Reagan Revolution entailed even though you parrot those beliefs.

The reason the FDA does not allow Canadian drugs to be imported is because the Parmy industry lobbied congress so hard, and it was Bush Jr who pushed it into law. The reason Canadian drugs are cheap are BECAUSE of things like regulations and price controls. The FDA is there to protect the people, because their interests are the peoples interests, the drug companies interests is PROFIT, and don't care if that drug saves your life or not. The FDA makes sure that supposed life saving drug doesn't actually kill you. I can tell from your comment that you probably don't know what the NIH is, and what they do, and how they actually do a good deal of the research.

The Right may point at the FDA for its failures to catch the salmonella outbreaks, but thats because Reagan did everything he could to gut all public regulatory agencies which undermined their effectiveness. Your numbers of government regulations causing the price of drugs to rise "80%" is outright erroneous. Billion dollar CEO pay/bonuses and shareholder dividends combined with the lack of REGULATORY PRICE CONTROLS are the what drive up the price of American pharmaceuticals.

I hope you realize that your ideology actually suggests that your name should be libertyforallcorporationsattheexpenseofthepeople.

Booya

CreditFigaro,

You appear to buy into the normal government talking points and then complain when drug prices are too high and those evil drug companies are taking advantage of us. People conveniently forget to mention the drug companies can only do that because the government has created the system of regulations that allow them to.

Drug companies aren't going to put out drugs that kill people. In general, killing people is bad for business. Hence, the free market will dictate that companies must put out safe products or be sued into bankruptcy.

You are also discounting the emergence of a private regulatory system for drug companies. Why wouldn't one arise when it does in almost every other industry.

Facts are the FDA regulations which stop Americans from purchasing life saving medications kills more than 20,000 Americans every single year. That's something I'd be worried about.

thecoyote23,

Adding things like "booya" at the end of your post is far more of an embarrassment to yourself than me.

It's even more embarrassing you following the same partisan hack talking points by claiming everyone who is pro-free market must be a pro-Reagan when he actually enacted as many regulations as any other President. I don't parrot anything close to Reagan's beliefs but if it helps your hack talking points you may continue to believe I do.

Thanks, you just proved my point. You are correct that Congress (meaning both Dems and Republicans) were bought by the Pharma industry to not allow the importation of Canadian medications. Thus, the government is the one stopping Americans from buying cheaper pharmaceuticals, not the pharma industry.
You are just miming every single left wing talking point that it's almost as if you have never had an original thought of your own. Being pro-free market does not equal pro-corporatism. I have a feeling you aren't smart enough to recognize the difference.

It is a fact that 80% of the costs of pharmaceutical products comes from FDA regulations. It is also a fact that, on average, it takes about a decade for a new drug to reach the market.

So on one hand you complain that generic drugs aren't reaching consumers then supporting the government who are stopping them from reaching consumers.

booya

OoooooOOOoooo The all powerful, all seeing Free Market will solve everything..... Government Baaaaadd.....Corporate Fascism gooood.

What do you think modern Free Market economics means today? Its not the economics of Adam Smith, its the economics of reducing government power and placing in the hands of a private corprotocracy. Thats why drug companies can do what they do, because they have a monopoly, which was allowed because Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act. Hopefully your Neo-Free Market monstrosity of an ideology will fall out of vogue soon with all the devastation it has caused. There is no such thing as a free market. Of course you don't think your ideology bares resemblance to Reagan's, which only proves my point that you don't even know what Reagan's policies entailed.

thecoyote23,

As I said, you don't appear to be educated enough to recognize the difference between the free market and corporatism.

Free market economics means the same thing it has always meant except to the people who are trying to pervert the meaning.

And again, drug companies can do what they want because the government allows them to. You keep thinking goverment=good

Give it up Libertyforall the jig is up you free market guys have fucked the country over big time, crawl back to the rock underneath you have come from!

Ron Paul is a douche by the way.

If there was a true free market you guys may have an argument.

Unfortunately, you are the ones criticizing a system we don't have (free market) and claiming we should have a system (heavily regulated by the government) that is already in place.

Sigh, just go read your DailyKos talking point and hopefully one day you'll take the time to educate yourself on the differences of supporting the free market and being against corporatism.

Also, why do I care what you think of Ron Paul? Really matters not all at to myself. But you are great at throwing out talking points because you have absolutely nothing that could be considered a coherent thought to put forth in this discussion.

Rivers of words with a drop substance from the both of you.

The fact that government must exist to protect people from fraud in order for a "free market" to exist in the first place should tell you that you cannot reduce the roll of government indefinitely. That means that the republican platform that they are for less government is a fallacy to begin with.

Doesn't it make you think twice, libertyforall, when you see that in order for a free market to exist you MUST have government intervention?

In fact, consumer protections, unions and government scrutiny of products released into the economy are REQUIRED to have a free market in the first place.

Regulations seems to be another hot button word. Most of us can agree that price regulations (floors and ceilings, subsidies) are going to cause waste. That was something that Reagan did a lot to help with, and he deserves credit for. At the same time, not all waste is bad.

There are other regulations, like prohibiting people from being abused by a profit seeking entity. Not paying a fair wage, selling someone something that doesn't do what it's supposed to, or duping someone into a purchase (freecreditreport.com is a great example) which are all things that shouldn't exist in a free market and that the government is required to involve itself in.

Think about it, libertyforall isn't totally wrong for desiring a free market. Unfortunately, he is also defending anti-protectionism which, by definition, has no place in a free market.

Free market: a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. (wikipedia)

There is a lot of room in that definition for discussion about what is best for our economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation

Learn a little bit, you all. I still am.

CreditFigaro,

I do not support a completely free market. That is an anarchist. Even Adam Smith admitted a completely free market would never work. I support a mixed economy with extremely minimal government regulation.
Regulations of the pharma industry are not needed. Don't you think it's funny that the FDA (who is receiving millions in kickbacks from pharma companies) are killing thousands of Americans every single year because of their policies. I thought they wre supposed to protect us.
Actually if people took a basic econ course they shouldn't support price regulations. The free market will regulate the price of products and if there is collusion between companies then the government should step in to break it apart.

Price ceilings, floors, and subsidies create an artificial value for a product or service which wreaks havoc in the marketplace. For example, a minimum wage places a false value on a wage, which in turn, means the employer will hire less people. If the employer does not pay enough then the free market will take care of that and people will not work there causing that business to lose money or go bankrupt. Price ceilings create a shortage on items and creates permanently high prices because those who own that product will never drop it below that price. Reference Nixon's attempt at a gas price ceiling or NYC's current price ceiling on housing prices.

I don't believe corporations should have free reign. Actually quite the opposite. We have seen how they damage places like Africa and other countries with weak governments.

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."-- Adam Smith

Adam Smiths praise of the division of labor is well known, but not his denunciation of its inhuman effects, which will turn working people into objects "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be something that must be prevented "in every improved and civilized society" by government action to overcome the destructive force of the "invisible hand." Also not well advertised is Smith's belief that government "regulation in favor of the workmen is always just and equitable," though not "when is favor of the masters." Or his call for equality of outcome, which was at the heart of his argument for free markets.

Grossly overpaid upper management and the exploitations of overseas peoples in combination with the degradation of Americas economy are the real problem.

The true "Free Market" is an unattainable delusion and will always be undermined by greed, stupidity, and power-lust. The pushers of the Washington Consensus claim to seek a free market when in actuality they only push legislation and policy that will continue to enrich the elite.

You can go on defending your precious and unattainable "free market" ideology, but the modern Neoliberal execution of it is one of the single greatest threats to the overall prosperity of mankind.

Also, notice in the first post I placed Free Market is quotations to differentiate between the true free market and the Neoliberal Free Market.

And finally, I think you confuse Corporatism with my distaste for Corporatocracy. Maybe you should not assume that people are clueless when in fact you are the one getting worked up about an entirely different concept.

Since Reagan started retrenching the Sherman Act.

jon_foshee,

That logic doesn't make any sense. Pharmaceutical companies fully support the health care bill because the government will pay out the ass while doctors receive kickbacks from putting millions of new patients on medications.

I can see how you would think that libertyforall, but your absolutely wrong. Where are you getting your info from, FOX news? I think your a little confused about the relationship between big pharm. and the government. If you can remember back a few years ago when Bush created his senior drug benefit card, this was a ploy to entice seniors to switch to HMO type coverage, in attempts to do away with government insurance (Medicare). During this time, big pharm. allowed private insurance companies to renegotiate their contracts, but did not allow medicare this privilege, yet another attempt to make medicare obsolete, in the meantime screwing over the American people (tax dollars which fund medicare) by charging medicare way more for the same exact thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pharm. companies try to appear as though they support a public option in attempts to improve their public image through press releases and clever television ads.. But don't buy into the hype.

Nevertheless, don't take my word for it, do some research for yourself and read this:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-option-smokescreens-and-what-you....

It's a nice idea that the most profitable business in the world actually cares about the people of America, but lets not kid ourselves, big pharms only agenda is to get people hooked on drugs, and there is plenty of evidence to support that.

And we will probably see the same thing happen to weed.

But that's what closets are for, he he.