Santorum Tells Sick Kid Not To Complain About $1 Million Drug Cost

[Ocean Seal]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/

Title says it all folks. I really wonder if the bourgeoisie actually feel this way about us. I mean its clear that they don't give half of a fuck, but maybe psychologically they have to make themselves think that we really aren't entitled to live. And destroy any common sense or decency that they had in order to be in the position which they are in.

I mean seriously what the fuck does an iPAD have anything to do with this. I'm not entitled to life because I'm not rich enough?

[RevSpetsnaz]

I dont even know what to say to this.

[Misanthrope]

The pharmaceutical industry has American's well being by the balls. What's to be thankful for?

[getfiscal]

One good thing Bush did is cover a lot of prescription drugs for seniors.

Edit: This story is sort of bogus. The mother said Abilify costs $1 million a year on paper. That's a completely made up number.

[Rafiq]

Everyone is rich like me it's all a matter of free will.

[Ostrinski]

I used to take abilify and it was like 80 bucks a month.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He also claimed it would “freeze innovation” if pharmaceutical companies were required to offer their drugs at a reasonable price.

Actually what really "freezes innovation" is the manner in which drug companies use patent law to stifle competition and keep drug prices at an obscene level. I wouldn't expect a jerk-off like Santorum to understand that, though.

[getfiscal]

Actually what really "freezes innovation" is the manner in which drug companies use patent law to stifle competition and keep drug prices at an obscene level. I wouldn't expect a jerk-off like Santorum to understand that, though.
If drug prices were low, or if there were no profit in creating a new drug, how would that encourage innovation?

Most drug research should be public for a lot of reasons but the American drug industry does encourage innovation.

[Astarte]

Actually what really "freezes innovation" is the manner in which drug companies use patent law to stifle competition and keep drug prices at an obscene level. I wouldn't expect a jerk-off like Santorum to understand that, though.

I saw Santorum's comments, and they are truly criminal...

Also, you are right, the profit motive argument is tired out old bullshit. At this stage in the game, capitalism has taken on such a reactionary flavor that any innovation in medicine, energy, transportation, etc, etc, etc ... basically anything that could better society as a whole is stifled not only so the corporations can maintain their wealth, but also their hegemonic ruling class status.

If they throw the example of Edison out there - if Edison existed today, with an invention like the lightbulb, the candle and oil lamp lobbies would do everything in their power to stifle it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If drug prices were low, or if there were no profit in creating a new drug, how would that encourage innovation?

Most drug research should be public for a lot of reasons but the American drug industry does encourage innovation.


This is borne out by F. M. Scherer's testimony before the FTC in 1995.76 Scherer spoke of a survey of 91 companies in which only seven "accorded high significance to patent protection as a factor in their R & D investments." Most of them described patents as "the least important of considerations." Most companies considered their chief motivation in R & D decisions to be "the necessity of remaining competitive, the desire for efficient production, and the desire to expand and diversify their sales." In another study, Scherer found no negative effect on R & D spending as a result of compulsory licensing of patents. A survey of U.S. firms found that 86% of inventions would have been developed without patents. In the case of automobiles, office equipment, rubber products, and textiles, the figure was 100%.

The one exception was drugs, in which 60% supposedly would not have been invented. I suspect either self-deception or disingenuousness on the part of the respondents, however. For one thing, drug companies get an unusually high portion of their R & D funding from the government, and many of their most lucrative products were developed entirely at government expense. And Scherer himself cited evidence to the contrary. The reputation advantage for being the first into a market is considerable. For example in the late 1970s, the structure of the industry and pricing behavior was found to be very similar between drugs with and those without patents. Being the first mover with a non-patented drug allowed a company to maintain a 30% market share and to charge premium prices.

http://www.mutualist.org/id74.html

Also mentions the suppression of "trade secrets" under trade agreements like GATT. That hardly counts as encouraging innovation.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Santorum is every bit as much of a reactionary clown as are Romney, Gingrich and Paul.

[Ocean Seal]

One good thing Bush did is cover a lot of prescription drugs for seniors.

Edit: This story is sort of bogus. The mother said Abilify costs $1 million a year on paper. That's a completely made up number.
It could be more than abilify being that schizophrenia deals with more factors, plus if her insurance doesn't cover her the prices could soar to more than you can imagine.


If drug prices were low, or if there were no profit in creating a new drug, how would that encourage innovation?

Most drug research should be public for a lot of reasons but the American drug industry does encourage innovation.
No it doesn't. I can guarantee without a doubt that the pace of drug development under socialism or social democracy would be far greater in the United States.



"Dearest Josef, You know as well as I do that we must restore capitalism. Socialism has failed. Let us kill that dying fool Lenin and open the floodgates to foreign capital." - Leon Trotsky to Josef Stalin, 1923.

Quotes Combined=Ladies and gentlemen we have a troll on our hands.

[getfiscal]

http://www.mutualist.org/id74.html

Also mentions the suppression of "trade secrets" under trade agreements like GATT. That hardly counts as encouraging innovation.
Your link is to a right-wing website and doesn't really make your point. You said high prices discourages innovation. Obviously this is false, because high prices would attract competition. You also said that patents discourages competitors from innovating. This probably isn't true, since patents simply stop competitors from producing drugs that have already been developed, and encourages them to look elsewhere. The US also invests large amounts in public research, this is true. I'm not arguing that corporate research is always good, just that the US does a lot to encourage innovation in drugs.

[getfiscal]

I can guarantee without a doubt that the pace of drug development under socialism or social democracy would be far greater in the United States."Far greater"... by what measure? You might be right. I don't know how you'd know that though. Like, how can you guess what inventions there would be under socialism?

[Ocean Seal]

"Far greater"... by what measure? You might be right. I don't know how you'd know that though. Like, how can you guess what inventions there would be under socialism?
By considering the fact that an economy managed for human need would dedicate a larger part of its resources to developing medicine whereas a capitalist economy only produces for profit. And taking into account that it is often profitable for a company to withhold progress if they are making enough money off a drug and impair the progress of others to ensure a bigger slice of the pie. The American pharmaceutical industry is falling behind at a greater pace than many of the other sciences (this of course being compared to other social democratic capitalist states).

[getfiscal]

it is often profitable for a company to withhold progress if they are making enough money off a drug
Could you explain how this works?

Edit: I can't imagine, say, a car company deliberately refusing to, say, build a better engine, because somehow that would hurt other companies from building engines... what?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Could you explain how this works?

Edit: I can't imagine, say, a car company deliberately refusing to, say, build a better engine, because somehow that would hurt other companies from building engines... what?

Say there's a terminal disease which is uncomfortable and requires heavy medication to slow down its advance. The pharmaceutical companies make a killing off of this disease-slowing medicine. Do they have an incentive to develop a low-cost medicine which cures this disease?

One example is HIV. AIDS drugs cost a lot of money, and drug companies make a huge profit off of it. This means that there is no real incentive for them to cure HIV itself, because it would kill their cash cow that is a person terminally sick with AIDS. A common accusation in the US is that the pharmaceutical companies concentrate more on curing the symptom than preventative medicine because they make more money off of it. Whether or not it is a common problem is another issue, but there is certainly a capitalist rationale behind holding off on potentially life-saving research, especially as accumulation and agglomeration means that many of the facilities which can do the research are owned by an ever-smaller and ever-more powerful circle of pharmaceutical businesses.

[getfiscal]

there is no real incentive for them to cure HIV itself, because it would kill their cash cow that is a person terminally sick with AIDS.
But there are other competing firms that want to make that advance and there is a large global public and university research system studying HIV/AIDS. This mixed model has been responsible for incredible advances against HIV/AIDS. Do you think the reason it hasn't been fixed yet is because of private sector profits in the pharmaceutical industry? That's probably wrong.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Your link is to a right-wing website and doesn't really make your point.

Wait, a "right wing website"? The guy who's website that is (Kevin Carson) is right-wing when compared to communists, but he's hardly "right wing" generally. He's a "market anarchist/socialist" who contributed to the Anarchist FAQ and some other left-wing publications. What are you talking about bro


You said high prices discourages innovation. Obviously this is false, because high prices would attract competition.

Patent law discourages innovation and keeps prices high. High prices are partially a function of patent law. The link has a nice example of Roche charging prices 40 times higher in countries with patent protections until the early 1970s than it did in Italy, which at the time did not have stringent patent protections.


You also said that patents discourages competitors from innovating. This probably isn't true, since patents simply stop competitors from producing drugs that have already been developed, and encourages them to look elsewhere. The US also invests large amounts in public research, this is true. I'm not arguing that corporate research is always good, just that the US does a lot to encourage innovation in drugs.

You also seemed to totally miss the context in which my comment was made. The GOP (or at least Santorum in this specific incident) portrays pharma as a neutral actor that rationally determines market value, when in fact it's highly intertwined with the state, the latest "universal healthcare bill" and Medicare part B plan being exhibit A. Therefore Americans get all the benefits of funneling money into "big Pharma" and less benefits than one would expect from that level of expenditure.

[Ocean Seal]

But there are other competing firms that want to make that advance and there is a large global public and university research system studying HIV/AIDS. This mixed model has been responsible for incredible advances against HIV/AIDS. Do you think the reason it hasn't been fixed yet is because of private sector profits in the pharmaceutical industry? That's probably wrong.
No its not the reason that we don't have an AIDS cure. But he did answer your question, and that question was how can a company stifle its own progress. You say that profit incentive encourages innovation, here's an example of why it is just a meaningless buzz statement.

Unfortunately, what you Randroids don't get is that the free market doesn't exist, and it will never exist. A few corporations run the show and don't generally care for innovation in the way that the capitalists fetishize it. How come Coke and Pepsi aren't reaching record lows in prices, how come we haven't seen innovation from the chronic duopoly.

[blake 3:17]

Could you explain how this works?

Edit: I can't imagine, say, a car company deliberately refusing to, say, build a better engine, because somehow that would hurt other companies from building engines... what?

The big three did discourage the production of more fuel efficient cars. There is a reason that Japanese auto has been successful and not just for its management strategies.


And taking into account that it is often profitable for a company to withhold progress if they are making enough money off a drug and impair the progress of others to ensure a bigger slice of the pie. And promoting odd uses of these drugs, constantly coming up with new ones which are basically the same but different enough for patent rights.

At the same time Capital opens up all new markets of illness by making basic good health a luxury -- shift work is brutal for workers health, and that's just one of several hundred examples I could give.

[getfiscal]

Unfortunately, what you Randroids don't get is that the free market doesn't exist, and it will never exist..
I don't support the free market, I am a socialist and I want most research into pharmaceuticals to be public and heavily regulated. I think it would probably even be useful to get rid of patents. I think most of the arguments in this thread are old and confused, though.

[getfiscal]

The big three did discourage the production of more fuel efficient cars. There is a reason that Japanese auto has been successful and not just for its management strategies.You just made a claim and then negated it in the next sentence. The market doesn't promote fuel efficiency, except when it does?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The big three did discourage the production of more fuel efficient cars. There is a reason that Japanese auto has been successful and not just for its management strategies.

And promoting odd uses of these drugs, constantly coming up with new ones which are basically the same but different enough for patent rights.

At the same time Capital opens up all new markets of illness by making basic good health a luxury -- shift work is brutal for workers health, and that's just one of several hundred examples I could give.
Emphasis mine; someone else on RevLeft mentioned this recently, I can't remember who, but a great example of this is the antidepressant industry. Most major SSRIs are essentially Prozac tweaked a little bit to allow a new patent to be filed / name given. A blatant example is Celexa being tweaked slightly towards the end of the patent protection period to make Lexapro.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't support the free market, I am a socialist and I want most research into pharmaceuticals to be public and heavily regulated. I think it would probably even be useful to get rid of patents. I think most of the arguments in this thread are old and confused, though.

My grandmother is old and confused, but when I listen to her instead of dismissing her altogether I learn things!:cursing:

[blake 3:17]

me:
The big three did discourage the production of more fuel efficient cars. There is a reason that Japanese auto has been successful and not just for its management strategies.

you:
You just made a claim and then negated it in the next sentence. The market doesn't promote fuel efficiency, except when it does?

I didn't negate the claim. I did phrase my post poorly -- the big three didn't "discourage" fuel efficiency they kept producing fuel inefficient vehicles even when it meant they lost market share.

The Japanese auto sector has been popular largely due to their efficient & economic designs. Their management style, corporatist, TQM, etc., has also kept profits higher.

[Prometeo liberado]

I have stopped being surprised by any of this stuff long ago. Reagan and Thatcher would make this crop of ass clowns sound like Ghandi. And yes, Santorum feels and thinks this way and can't understand why people like us don't appreciate having prosperous and enlightened people like him around. How dare we complain about sick children! They are alive aren't they? Can't afford health costs? LET THEM EAT IPADS!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But there are other competing firms that want to make that advance and there is a large global public and university research system studying HIV/AIDS. This mixed model has been responsible for incredible advances against HIV/AIDS. Do you think the reason it hasn't been fixed yet is because of private sector profits in the pharmaceutical industry? That's probably wrong.

HIV may not be the best example because of the difficulty in finding a cure in general, but the point is that the private labs are usually owned by the same firms making various AIDS meds and the public university research is being directed in part by private interests which give grants to schools. There's more incentive for all the firms involved to stay on the gravy train than there is for one firm to blow it for all of them by finding a general, cheap cure which is easy to mass produce.

[Lucretia]

You're letting ThinkProgress manipulate you. They're banking on getting you so irate that you'll do anything, including vote for Obama, to beat people who would say such absurd things.

That's why these "Conservative person X said terrible thing Y!" threads annoy the shit out of me.

[RevSpetsnaz]

The fact that these "candidates" have been saying what they have with such little repudiation tells me this country is nothing short of inept.

[el_chavista]

Hey, I googled "Santorum" (here in Caracas) and look what it brought about:


spreadingsantorum.com/ -
Santorum
1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
2. Senator Rick Santorum. :confused: :lol:

[Olentzero]

That requires a little explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism).