Health Care Reform Part III: The Implementation.

You know what could turn that "doubt" into something substantial? Substantiating your claim.

With evidence.

Of the tangible kind.

 

You go first, how is Viagra stunting HIV research?

 

What is wrong with the conservatives on this site?

Conservative: "I believe this outlandish claim!"

Me: "Validate it."

Conservative: "You first."

But whatever. The conservative movement in this country is brain-dead. As are the overwhelming majority of its adherents. You know it, too.

This. Took. Two. Minutes.

I imagine you'd get more information from reading Goozner's book and following up with his data sources, or obtaining the R&D expenditures for these pharma companies. You could also examine stock prices before and after Pfizer's marketing of Viagra, and compare that to the proportion of new disease-combating drugs Pfizer introduced.

But we both know you won't do any of that, don't we. Because the conservative movement in this country is brain-dead. As are the overwhelming majority of its adherents. You're so unresponsive to the notion that if you make a claim, you and not your opponent, have to back it up, that when presented with anything short of a complete rejection of everything you believe in you ignore it. And when presented with a complete rejection of everything you believe in, you tend to ignore the messenger. It's pathetic and you ought to feel ashamed.

 

Jesus Christ Brummie, if you can't to address the issue yourself could you not Google something more current than 2004?

 

Or, you know, you could provide any evidence....to back up your own claim...instead of criticizing mine.

Something something glass houses something throwing stones.

 

I questioned whether Viagra was retarding HIV research. I'd argue the Viagra revenues allow Pfizer to invest in other drugs. How would you like me to disprove the obvious? Again, the ball is in your court. How do Viagra profits retard HIV research?

 

Actually, these are the statements you posted:

You have presented zero evidence as to either assertion, not question. The article from 2004 I post says that the increased revenues do not contribute to investment in other drugs. I humbly submit to you to do what you do best: provide evidence to defend your assertions.

 

God you are dumb. How does one prove Viagra hasn't been a big blockbuster drug has allowed Pfizer to invest in other research? It has been a big blockbuster, and Pfizer does produce HIV drugs.

 

God, you are dumb.

 

Viagra will come off patent and Brummie will still be Googling.

 

My hope is to be basing my arguments off of the evidence presented to me long after your sorry ass departs this forum.

 

Such an angry young man. Perhaps you should seek treatment... if Obamacare will cover it and you can find a doctor that accepts it.

 

A score board happy dance works better when the score board is plugged in and has an actual score.

Just sayin'

 

My post was random and borne of budding insanity on a minor break from job-related anguish. Nothing more. I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to berate me for it.

 

Would you like to be hit on the head or wacked on the bottom? I'm sure Brummie can hook you up.

 

With regard to higher drug costs in this country, everyone has it mostly correct. But there is something the government can do. If a patent issues based on research supported by a government grant (NIH, NSF, etc.), the government has some rights to the invention. It could require compulsory licensing, i.e. it could require the patent holder to license the patent to other companies (who could then compete on the basis of price before the drug goes off patent and generics become available). Or more realistically, it could threaten to do so unless the patent holder agrees to market the drug at a lower price (which it almost certainly would, given the alternative). But the government has never shown any interest in doing so.

A really nasty practice is paying generic drug companies to not market generic drugs, so they can keep selling the name brand drugs at high prices. That should be outlawed. I think there are lots of things that could be done to keep costs down in this country, if we were only serious about it.

 

The same way that people without insurance using the US healthcare system are subsidized by those of us with insurance. Someone should mandate that they pay their fair share.

 

This idea that the US is somehow subsidizing the rest of the world's pharma R&D reminds me a bit of the standard mythologizing that surrounds opinions of how the US single-handedly won WWII. In short, it's a well-worn, hubris-laden pile of crap that seems to be used by those who see a need to justify and rationalize some of the most ********ed up aspects of the US healthcare system. Ah, yes, but for the vast profits big pharma generates, they'd just stop developing new drugs or something.

Bullshit. As others have stated, pharma companies rake in so much profit here because they're allowed to:

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/02/the-costly-myths-about-pharmaceutical-rd/

 

I've been busy. Your answer is in table 2:

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-...adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/

 

Patents themselves are government intervention into the marketplace!! Once you concede patents, we're just negotiating the price.