Joe-Max Moore :: Drug Dealer

I've never been a big Joe-Max fan - no particular reason - but if he's helping people get cheaper prescription meds, even if he and his father are turning over a nice profit while doing so, he's gone up a few notches in my view.

 

Joe-Max has gone way up in my view. I think ill have to start rooting for the guy.

 

I think it's great, but he's going to get it from the stands anyway...

 

Did you call, Liam?

 

reimportation is bad for America

I like JMM, but I hope he and his dad get shut down.

Reimportation only exaserbates the current problem. A drug costs a few hundred billion to develop and get through the FDA.

The Canadian socialist health care system gives American pharmaceuticals all-or-none, low-ball offers for drugs, and Americans pick up the rest of the development tab.

On top of that, these reimportation companies don't offer the same kind of safety that the FDA brings.

Here's more info: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm304.cfm

 

Dude, you're full of *@#*@#*@#*@#.

In the first half of 2003, Glaxo Smith Kline PLC earned 2,665 million UK Pounds after taxation on revenues of 10,597 million UK Pounds.

That includes both their consumer healthcare and pharmaceutical divisions.

Cost of sales was 2,009 million UK pounds, SG&A was 3,616 million UK pounds (this includes your executive salaries, and the cost of all those bizarre drug ads that you see on CNN), and R&D was 1,274 million UK pounds.

They're making more than enough money, and not pouring even half of it back into R&D.

And this is in a "downturn" economy.

 

So now it's illegal to make a profit?

 

Joe-Max should get out of this (for now)...he is a (quasi) public figure...

Its a bit silly to say "I had no idea" it was illegal (whatever)..although I don't have a problem with it, EVERYONE who gets into this biz knows they are playing cutsie with the (current) law, and are willing to take that risk....of course, this is a complex issue (Congress has already passed versions repealing, and some Congressman aid citizens going to Canada, etc), so the law MAY be unjust...but it is still a law (and everyone knows it)..

Joe-Max should let his father handle this....it's going to look weird if Joe-Max is in court, etc..

 

Believe it or not, in a properly operating "free market" economy, profits are minimized because if a company or group of companies are making a profit, more competitors will enter the market to capitalize on that profit opportunity.

In order to compete, they will drive the price of the good or service down, approaching the actual cost of producing the good or service, minimizing profits.

This will continue until there are no profits to be had in that product or service, and competitors will drop out of the production of that product or service and move on to something more profitable.

The current situation is created because the theoretical market economy cannot exist in real life. The barriers to entry are too great (in the case of drug manufacturing, companies are prevented from entering the market for a specific drug because of patents, and those competitors who do exist refuse to compete because it is more profitable for them to advertise their current products and services than to investigate products which would compete with the other drug manufacturing firms, among other issues).

Pretending that deregulation etc would solve this is the most banal and common mistake made by "conservatives".

The solution is to audit these companies books, set prices by law, and remove the kind of buyers that the companies are advertising to (to the tune of 670 million UK Pounds last year in the US market alone (the only market where direct to consumer advertising is allowed by law) for Glaxo Smith Kline alone) by implementing a system with a single buyer.

If companies refuse to compete for production, then the only solution is either for the government to compete with them in production (preventing the market from dropping the price) or for the government to intervene so that buyers won't compete for purchasing (driving up the price).

Let's get back to discussing actual soccer related stuff here though, this isn't the religion and politics board.

 

Look at the source

Take any report from the Heritage Foundation with a grain (or two) of salt. This group takes a ton of money from corporate sponsors and my guess is that some digging would uncover some pharm. companies paying big bucks to get this kind of coverage.

 

Re: Look at the source

And then there's the Cato institute:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa475.pdf

 

Whoa, yeah, this wins a big thumbs up from me! FIGHT THE POWER. I dunno about anyone else but I am all about my grandparents NOT getting jacked for medicine.


And come on, the Heritage Foundation??? Aren't they essentially the US Fascist Party?

 

Re: Re: Look at the source

Funded by major corporations including Eli Lilly & Company (Prozac, Zyprexa), Merck & Company (Propecia, Vioxx) and Pfizer, Inc. (Viagra, Lipitor) and formerly including that stalwart independent Rupert Murdoch (defender of "Fair and Balanced" news coverage) on it's board of directors...

That Cato Institute?

edit: added brand names of products commonly associated with these major drug companies.

 

Re: Re: reimportation is bad for America

Here's a low estimate from Tufts University: $802 million:

http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?newsid=6

Pharms aren't charities. They're business. They don't owe America anything. Pharms pick up the bulk of R&D costs, and can you fault them for advertising? They have to recoup costs and have capitol to development the next life-safing, prot-making drug.

Of course you have to take any think tank with a grain of salt - they all have biases whether they're Heritage, Cato or Brookings. (Are Brookings the US Commie party because they get contributions from all the labor unions? C'mon ) The bottom line is that facts are facts.

In resonse to another criticism: no, we don't pay for the stuff to get developed. While a lot is accomplished at NIH, most drugs are developed by American pharmaceuticals. Here's a list of the 2002 New Medical Entities from the FDA:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/FYUFNME2002REL.htm

If one of these NME's is NIH-developed I'd be happy to admit that I'm wrong, but Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and the rest all look like private companies to me.

Maybe new regulations should be established for sales to Canada, maybe other American restrictions should pass. Either way, it's ignorant to not recognize that reimportation supports a country that low balls US pharm companies at the expense of our grandparents' pocketbooks.

 

Re: Re: Re: Look at the source

Isn't the IPA the guys that sent Sean Penn on a 'fact finding' tour of Baghdad?

And Puma. $30bil in R&D Costs for the Pharm companies annually.

And last tangent. You might relieve the burden on your grandparents checkbook at the expense of access to the next generation of parms to your children.

 

If a prescription drug only cost a certain amount for Canadians, why should Americans have to pay more? Amazon.com doesn't change their price for where you live, why should a pharmaceutical company? If you're broke in the USA that doesn't mean you can pay the price wealthier people pay. Other countries pay lower prices. We're talking necessities here. People that withhold necessities from sick/poor people are spineless.

 

"Can I buy some pot from you?"

 

I'm with ya. I never liked Joe-Max all that much. Not even when he was 12 and going through puberty.

So this whole pharmaceutical war needs to end and let's get on with making fun of Joe-bill-bob......(well, whatever he said.)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Look at the source

Can you please tell me what exactly I have to do with his grandparent's checkbook?