"SIKO"

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>PeterC</b></i>

What is sicko? </end quote></div>


Oh! oh! pick me! pick me!

Your raging hypocracy and skewed analysis?



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

The following link will take you to an article about the financial compensation doctors get for promoting drugs. On average every doctor in the U.S. receives an amount equal to $13,000 a year in the form of gifts and cash for using and promoting name brand drugs. In 2001 the drug industry spent more than six times the amount they spent on research and development, on advertising and promotions.

</end quote></div>

1. 2001 was prior to PHARMA guidelines, that went into affect after 2001. Companies are no longer able to take physicians on trips, out golfing, to sporting events, etc.

2. I'll tell you exactly what this $13,000 is spent on.

a. food. my physicians are so busy trying to see patients (volume = more money) that they barely have time to feed themselves or their staff (money spent on staff is included in the calculation). my docs don't have time to eat lunch, so when a rep brings food buy, they eat it. some of my offices have 10 staff members, so feeding the office adds up.

what would your CF doctor be like if he saw you for your appointment at 4pm and hadn't eaten lunch? it's an extreme example, but <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because food is brought in by a rep once a month, you might want to see another physician. </b>

b. pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters, books (non-branded, such as a PDR or AMA publication). we also provide billing people with ICD-9 code books (can cost a few hundred dollars). Oh also urine specimin cups. again, <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because his office has pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters and books, you might want to see another physician. </b>

c. speaking engagements. primary care physicians don't have time to keep up on every single drug that comes to the market in the United States (or new studies that are published). so they go out to see their colleagues speak. no specialist is going to take 3 hours out of his night to speak just to be nice. his time away from his family is worth something, so pharma pays for it.

d. samples. companies give out free samples for patients to try before having to fill an Rx. This is also included in the cost spent per physician.

we as CFers see how difficult it is for our CF docs to keep up with all the latest CF info. many of us bring stuff up to the doc that he hasn't seen/read. and this is a pretty specialized disease state. imagine what it's like for GP or IM doc.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...big_pharma.
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...and_big_pharma.
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/distance_needed_between_doctors_and_big_pharma.
<br ">http://www.appar...co...big_ph...
</a></a>
</a>
html </end quote></div>

watch the source.......



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry is engaged in bribery and pressure tactics to get doctors to promote their products and get patients to ask for them. </end quote></div>

This is simply not true. No one forces a phsyician to write a drug. It's their choice. And there is no bribery. What PHARMA guidelines allow the pharma industry to give a physician is <u> clearly defined and extremely limited </u>. Big Pharma and biotecs can't do what almost every other industry on the planet does.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry leaders do not care about people! I am sure many of their employees do but the primary focus of the boards of directors and share holders is to make as much money as possible. </end quote></div>

If you take TOBI, pulmozyme, any IV antibiotic, albuterol or any other drug for that matter, you're an out and out hypocrit.

They're keeping your butt alive, but saying that they don't care about people????? Do you go out of your way not to make sense?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>If you believe anything else you are very naive! </end quote></div>

I think you have an agenda and are undereducated about this industry. Your statement is rediculous.

But let me ask these questions.

Did the company who made your car do so out of the goodness of their heart? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the computer that you're typing on? Did the manufacturer make it just for you, to make your life easier and more productive? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the food that you're eating? Was it grown, processed, and put on the store shelf just for your well-being? no, the manufacturer works hard to do so so they can turn a profit.

No company cares about you Pete, or me. Every company is out to turn a profit, and in so doing <b> they make your life better. they give you better products at a cheaper price. </b> This is how economics works.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As a result of these published findings, Hospitals and centers of medical learning are finally putting in place policies that prevent any doctor affiliated with them from accepting gifts or compensation of any kind from the pharmaceutical industry. One of these medical centers is Stanford. One of the reasons I go there if because of their stand on this issue. </end quote></div>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The nation's water supply and surrounding ecosystems are now in grave danger because of the levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals found in the water. </end quote></div>

Wow I hope you don't take a single drug, then, Pete. Because if you do, you know what that makes you?

You guessed it. <b><u> a raging hypocirt </b></u>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>His intentions were probably good at the time but market forces and the tremendous potential for profit took over. </end quote></div>

This is always the problem with government programs and laws.

Everyone has the warm and fuzzy intentions. Unforseen consequences always arise.

Reminds me of Cater in the 70s. Who wouldn't want cheaper gas prices? Oh wooopps, any idiot who has studied economics saw from a mile away that price caps causes shortages.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The pharmaceutical industry and our health care system are out of control and we are all paying the price!!
</end quote></div>

I think you're out of control. I challenge you to post an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it....
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>PeterC</b></i>

What is sicko? </end quote></div>


Oh! oh! pick me! pick me!

Your raging hypocracy and skewed analysis?



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

The following link will take you to an article about the financial compensation doctors get for promoting drugs. On average every doctor in the U.S. receives an amount equal to $13,000 a year in the form of gifts and cash for using and promoting name brand drugs. In 2001 the drug industry spent more than six times the amount they spent on research and development, on advertising and promotions.

</end quote></div>

1. 2001 was prior to PHARMA guidelines, that went into affect after 2001. Companies are no longer able to take physicians on trips, out golfing, to sporting events, etc.

2. I'll tell you exactly what this $13,000 is spent on.

a. food. my physicians are so busy trying to see patients (volume = more money) that they barely have time to feed themselves or their staff (money spent on staff is included in the calculation). my docs don't have time to eat lunch, so when a rep brings food buy, they eat it. some of my offices have 10 staff members, so feeding the office adds up.

what would your CF doctor be like if he saw you for your appointment at 4pm and hadn't eaten lunch? it's an extreme example, but <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because food is brought in by a rep once a month, you might want to see another physician. </b>

b. pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters, books (non-branded, such as a PDR or AMA publication). we also provide billing people with ICD-9 code books (can cost a few hundred dollars). Oh also urine specimin cups. again, <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because his office has pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters and books, you might want to see another physician. </b>

c. speaking engagements. primary care physicians don't have time to keep up on every single drug that comes to the market in the United States (or new studies that are published). so they go out to see their colleagues speak. no specialist is going to take 3 hours out of his night to speak just to be nice. his time away from his family is worth something, so pharma pays for it.

d. samples. companies give out free samples for patients to try before having to fill an Rx. This is also included in the cost spent per physician.

we as CFers see how difficult it is for our CF docs to keep up with all the latest CF info. many of us bring stuff up to the doc that he hasn't seen/read. and this is a pretty specialized disease state. imagine what it's like for GP or IM doc.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...big_pharma.
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...and_big_pharma.
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/distance_needed_between_doctors_and_big_pharma.
<br ">http://www.appar...co...big_ph...
</a></a>
</a>
html </end quote></div>

watch the source.......



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry is engaged in bribery and pressure tactics to get doctors to promote their products and get patients to ask for them. </end quote></div>

This is simply not true. No one forces a phsyician to write a drug. It's their choice. And there is no bribery. What PHARMA guidelines allow the pharma industry to give a physician is <u> clearly defined and extremely limited </u>. Big Pharma and biotecs can't do what almost every other industry on the planet does.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry leaders do not care about people! I am sure many of their employees do but the primary focus of the boards of directors and share holders is to make as much money as possible. </end quote></div>

If you take TOBI, pulmozyme, any IV antibiotic, albuterol or any other drug for that matter, you're an out and out hypocrit.

They're keeping your butt alive, but saying that they don't care about people????? Do you go out of your way not to make sense?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>If you believe anything else you are very naive! </end quote></div>

I think you have an agenda and are undereducated about this industry. Your statement is rediculous.

But let me ask these questions.

Did the company who made your car do so out of the goodness of their heart? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the computer that you're typing on? Did the manufacturer make it just for you, to make your life easier and more productive? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the food that you're eating? Was it grown, processed, and put on the store shelf just for your well-being? no, the manufacturer works hard to do so so they can turn a profit.

No company cares about you Pete, or me. Every company is out to turn a profit, and in so doing <b> they make your life better. they give you better products at a cheaper price. </b> This is how economics works.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As a result of these published findings, Hospitals and centers of medical learning are finally putting in place policies that prevent any doctor affiliated with them from accepting gifts or compensation of any kind from the pharmaceutical industry. One of these medical centers is Stanford. One of the reasons I go there if because of their stand on this issue. </end quote></div>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The nation's water supply and surrounding ecosystems are now in grave danger because of the levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals found in the water. </end quote></div>

Wow I hope you don't take a single drug, then, Pete. Because if you do, you know what that makes you?

You guessed it. <b><u> a raging hypocirt </b></u>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>His intentions were probably good at the time but market forces and the tremendous potential for profit took over. </end quote></div>

This is always the problem with government programs and laws.

Everyone has the warm and fuzzy intentions. Unforseen consequences always arise.

Reminds me of Cater in the 70s. Who wouldn't want cheaper gas prices? Oh wooopps, any idiot who has studied economics saw from a mile away that price caps causes shortages.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The pharmaceutical industry and our health care system are out of control and we are all paying the price!!
</end quote></div>

I think you're out of control. I challenge you to post an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it....
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>PeterC</b></i>

What is sicko? </end quote></div>


Oh! oh! pick me! pick me!

Your raging hypocracy and skewed analysis?



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

The following link will take you to an article about the financial compensation doctors get for promoting drugs. On average every doctor in the U.S. receives an amount equal to $13,000 a year in the form of gifts and cash for using and promoting name brand drugs. In 2001 the drug industry spent more than six times the amount they spent on research and development, on advertising and promotions.

</end quote></div>

1. 2001 was prior to PHARMA guidelines, that went into affect after 2001. Companies are no longer able to take physicians on trips, out golfing, to sporting events, etc.

2. I'll tell you exactly what this $13,000 is spent on.

a. food. my physicians are so busy trying to see patients (volume = more money) that they barely have time to feed themselves or their staff (money spent on staff is included in the calculation). my docs don't have time to eat lunch, so when a rep brings food buy, they eat it. some of my offices have 10 staff members, so feeding the office adds up.

what would your CF doctor be like if he saw you for your appointment at 4pm and hadn't eaten lunch? it's an extreme example, but <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because food is brought in by a rep once a month, you might want to see another physician. </b>

b. pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters, books (non-branded, such as a PDR or AMA publication). we also provide billing people with ICD-9 code books (can cost a few hundred dollars). Oh also urine specimin cups. again, <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because his office has pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters and books, you might want to see another physician. </b>

c. speaking engagements. primary care physicians don't have time to keep up on every single drug that comes to the market in the United States (or new studies that are published). so they go out to see their colleagues speak. no specialist is going to take 3 hours out of his night to speak just to be nice. his time away from his family is worth something, so pharma pays for it.

d. samples. companies give out free samples for patients to try before having to fill an Rx. This is also included in the cost spent per physician.

we as CFers see how difficult it is for our CF docs to keep up with all the latest CF info. many of us bring stuff up to the doc that he hasn't seen/read. and this is a pretty specialized disease state. imagine what it's like for GP or IM doc.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...big_pharma.
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...and_big_pharma.
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/distance_needed_between_doctors_and_big_pharma.
<br ">http://www.appar...co...big_ph...
</a></a>
</a>
html </end quote></div>

watch the source.......



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry is engaged in bribery and pressure tactics to get doctors to promote their products and get patients to ask for them. </end quote></div>

This is simply not true. No one forces a phsyician to write a drug. It's their choice. And there is no bribery. What PHARMA guidelines allow the pharma industry to give a physician is <u> clearly defined and extremely limited </u>. Big Pharma and biotecs can't do what almost every other industry on the planet does.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry leaders do not care about people! I am sure many of their employees do but the primary focus of the boards of directors and share holders is to make as much money as possible. </end quote></div>

If you take TOBI, pulmozyme, any IV antibiotic, albuterol or any other drug for that matter, you're an out and out hypocrit.

They're keeping your butt alive, but saying that they don't care about people????? Do you go out of your way not to make sense?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>If you believe anything else you are very naive! </end quote></div>

I think you have an agenda and are undereducated about this industry. Your statement is rediculous.

But let me ask these questions.

Did the company who made your car do so out of the goodness of their heart? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the computer that you're typing on? Did the manufacturer make it just for you, to make your life easier and more productive? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the food that you're eating? Was it grown, processed, and put on the store shelf just for your well-being? no, the manufacturer works hard to do so so they can turn a profit.

No company cares about you Pete, or me. Every company is out to turn a profit, and in so doing <b> they make your life better. they give you better products at a cheaper price. </b> This is how economics works.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As a result of these published findings, Hospitals and centers of medical learning are finally putting in place policies that prevent any doctor affiliated with them from accepting gifts or compensation of any kind from the pharmaceutical industry. One of these medical centers is Stanford. One of the reasons I go there if because of their stand on this issue. </end quote></div>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The nation's water supply and surrounding ecosystems are now in grave danger because of the levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals found in the water. </end quote></div>

Wow I hope you don't take a single drug, then, Pete. Because if you do, you know what that makes you?

You guessed it. <b><u> a raging hypocirt </b></u>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>His intentions were probably good at the time but market forces and the tremendous potential for profit took over. </end quote></div>

This is always the problem with government programs and laws.

Everyone has the warm and fuzzy intentions. Unforseen consequences always arise.

Reminds me of Cater in the 70s. Who wouldn't want cheaper gas prices? Oh wooopps, any idiot who has studied economics saw from a mile away that price caps causes shortages.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The pharmaceutical industry and our health care system are out of control and we are all paying the price!!
</end quote></div>

I think you're out of control. I challenge you to post an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it....
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>PeterC</b></i>

What is sicko? </end quote></div>


Oh! oh! pick me! pick me!

Your raging hypocracy and skewed analysis?



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

The following link will take you to an article about the financial compensation doctors get for promoting drugs. On average every doctor in the U.S. receives an amount equal to $13,000 a year in the form of gifts and cash for using and promoting name brand drugs. In 2001 the drug industry spent more than six times the amount they spent on research and development, on advertising and promotions.

</end quote></div>

1. 2001 was prior to PHARMA guidelines, that went into affect after 2001. Companies are no longer able to take physicians on trips, out golfing, to sporting events, etc.

2. I'll tell you exactly what this $13,000 is spent on.

a. food. my physicians are so busy trying to see patients (volume = more money) that they barely have time to feed themselves or their staff (money spent on staff is included in the calculation). my docs don't have time to eat lunch, so when a rep brings food buy, they eat it. some of my offices have 10 staff members, so feeding the office adds up.

what would your CF doctor be like if he saw you for your appointment at 4pm and hadn't eaten lunch? it's an extreme example, but <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because food is brought in by a rep once a month, you might want to see another physician. </b>

b. pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters, books (non-branded, such as a PDR or AMA publication). we also provide billing people with ICD-9 code books (can cost a few hundred dollars). Oh also urine specimin cups. again, <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because his office has pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters and books, you might want to see another physician. </b>

c. speaking engagements. primary care physicians don't have time to keep up on every single drug that comes to the market in the United States (or new studies that are published). so they go out to see their colleagues speak. no specialist is going to take 3 hours out of his night to speak just to be nice. his time away from his family is worth something, so pharma pays for it.

d. samples. companies give out free samples for patients to try before having to fill an Rx. This is also included in the cost spent per physician.

we as CFers see how difficult it is for our CF docs to keep up with all the latest CF info. many of us bring stuff up to the doc that he hasn't seen/read. and this is a pretty specialized disease state. imagine what it's like for GP or IM doc.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...big_pharma.
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...and_big_pharma.
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/distance_needed_between_doctors_and_big_pharma.
<br ">http://www.appar...co...big_ph...
</a></a>
</a>
html </end quote></div>

watch the source.......



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry is engaged in bribery and pressure tactics to get doctors to promote their products and get patients to ask for them. </end quote></div>

This is simply not true. No one forces a phsyician to write a drug. It's their choice. And there is no bribery. What PHARMA guidelines allow the pharma industry to give a physician is <u> clearly defined and extremely limited </u>. Big Pharma and biotecs can't do what almost every other industry on the planet does.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry leaders do not care about people! I am sure many of their employees do but the primary focus of the boards of directors and share holders is to make as much money as possible. </end quote></div>

If you take TOBI, pulmozyme, any IV antibiotic, albuterol or any other drug for that matter, you're an out and out hypocrit.

They're keeping your butt alive, but saying that they don't care about people????? Do you go out of your way not to make sense?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>If you believe anything else you are very naive! </end quote></div>

I think you have an agenda and are undereducated about this industry. Your statement is rediculous.

But let me ask these questions.

Did the company who made your car do so out of the goodness of their heart? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the computer that you're typing on? Did the manufacturer make it just for you, to make your life easier and more productive? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the food that you're eating? Was it grown, processed, and put on the store shelf just for your well-being? no, the manufacturer works hard to do so so they can turn a profit.

No company cares about you Pete, or me. Every company is out to turn a profit, and in so doing <b> they make your life better. they give you better products at a cheaper price. </b> This is how economics works.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As a result of these published findings, Hospitals and centers of medical learning are finally putting in place policies that prevent any doctor affiliated with them from accepting gifts or compensation of any kind from the pharmaceutical industry. One of these medical centers is Stanford. One of the reasons I go there if because of their stand on this issue. </end quote></div>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The nation's water supply and surrounding ecosystems are now in grave danger because of the levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals found in the water. </end quote></div>

Wow I hope you don't take a single drug, then, Pete. Because if you do, you know what that makes you?

You guessed it. <b><u> a raging hypocirt </b></u>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>His intentions were probably good at the time but market forces and the tremendous potential for profit took over. </end quote></div>

This is always the problem with government programs and laws.

Everyone has the warm and fuzzy intentions. Unforseen consequences always arise.

Reminds me of Cater in the 70s. Who wouldn't want cheaper gas prices? Oh wooopps, any idiot who has studied economics saw from a mile away that price caps causes shortages.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The pharmaceutical industry and our health care system are out of control and we are all paying the price!!
</end quote></div>

I think you're out of control. I challenge you to post an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it....
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>PeterC</b></i>

What is sicko? </end quote>


Oh! oh! pick me! pick me!

Your raging hypocracy and skewed analysis?



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

The following link will take you to an article about the financial compensation doctors get for promoting drugs. On average every doctor in the U.S. receives an amount equal to $13,000 a year in the form of gifts and cash for using and promoting name brand drugs. In 2001 the drug industry spent more than six times the amount they spent on research and development, on advertising and promotions.

</end quote>

1. 2001 was prior to PHARMA guidelines, that went into affect after 2001. Companies are no longer able to take physicians on trips, out golfing, to sporting events, etc.

2. I'll tell you exactly what this $13,000 is spent on.

a. food. my physicians are so busy trying to see patients (volume = more money) that they barely have time to feed themselves or their staff (money spent on staff is included in the calculation). my docs don't have time to eat lunch, so when a rep brings food buy, they eat it. some of my offices have 10 staff members, so feeding the office adds up.

what would your CF doctor be like if he saw you for your appointment at 4pm and hadn't eaten lunch? it's an extreme example, but <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because food is brought in by a rep once a month, you might want to see another physician. </b>

b. pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters, books (non-branded, such as a PDR or AMA publication). we also provide billing people with ICD-9 code books (can cost a few hundred dollars). Oh also urine specimin cups. again, <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because his office has pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters and books, you might want to see another physician. </b>

c. speaking engagements. primary care physicians don't have time to keep up on every single drug that comes to the market in the United States (or new studies that are published). so they go out to see their colleagues speak. no specialist is going to take 3 hours out of his night to speak just to be nice. his time away from his family is worth something, so pharma pays for it.

d. samples. companies give out free samples for patients to try before having to fill an Rx. This is also included in the cost spent per physician.

we as CFers see how difficult it is for our CF docs to keep up with all the latest CF info. many of us bring stuff up to the doc that he hasn't seen/read. and this is a pretty specialized disease state. imagine what it's like for GP or IM doc.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...big_pharma.
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...and_big_pharma.
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/distance_needed_between_doctors_and_big_pharma.
<br ">http://www.appar...co...big_ph...
</a></a>
</a>
html </end quote>

watch the source.......



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry is engaged in bribery and pressure tactics to get doctors to promote their products and get patients to ask for them. </end quote>

This is simply not true. No one forces a phsyician to write a drug. It's their choice. And there is no bribery. What PHARMA guidelines allow the pharma industry to give a physician is <u> clearly defined and extremely limited </u>. Big Pharma and biotecs can't do what almost every other industry on the planet does.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry leaders do not care about people! I am sure many of their employees do but the primary focus of the boards of directors and share holders is to make as much money as possible. </end quote>

If you take TOBI, pulmozyme, any IV antibiotic, albuterol or any other drug for that matter, you're an out and out hypocrit.

They're keeping your butt alive, but saying that they don't care about people????? Do you go out of your way not to make sense?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>If you believe anything else you are very naive! </end quote>

I think you have an agenda and are undereducated about this industry. Your statement is rediculous.

But let me ask these questions.

Did the company who made your car do so out of the goodness of their heart? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the computer that you're typing on? Did the manufacturer make it just for you, to make your life easier and more productive? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the food that you're eating? Was it grown, processed, and put on the store shelf just for your well-being? no, the manufacturer works hard to do so so they can turn a profit.

No company cares about you Pete, or me. Every company is out to turn a profit, and in so doing <b> they make your life better. they give you better products at a cheaper price. </b> This is how economics works.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As a result of these published findings, Hospitals and centers of medical learning are finally putting in place policies that prevent any doctor affiliated with them from accepting gifts or compensation of any kind from the pharmaceutical industry. One of these medical centers is Stanford. One of the reasons I go there if because of their stand on this issue. </end quote>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The nation's water supply and surrounding ecosystems are now in grave danger because of the levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals found in the water. </end quote>

Wow I hope you don't take a single drug, then, Pete. Because if you do, you know what that makes you?

You guessed it. <b><u> a raging hypocirt </b></u>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>His intentions were probably good at the time but market forces and the tremendous potential for profit took over. </end quote>

This is always the problem with government programs and laws.

Everyone has the warm and fuzzy intentions. Unforseen consequences always arise.

Reminds me of Cater in the 70s. Who wouldn't want cheaper gas prices? Oh wooopps, any idiot who has studied economics saw from a mile away that price caps causes shortages.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The pharmaceutical industry and our health care system are out of control and we are all paying the price!!
</end quote>

I think you're out of control. I challenge you to post an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it....
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>PeterC</b></i>

What is sicko? </end quote>


Oh! oh! pick me! pick me!

Your raging hypocracy and skewed analysis?



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

The following link will take you to an article about the financial compensation doctors get for promoting drugs. On average every doctor in the U.S. receives an amount equal to $13,000 a year in the form of gifts and cash for using and promoting name brand drugs. In 2001 the drug industry spent more than six times the amount they spent on research and development, on advertising and promotions.

</end quote>

1. 2001 was prior to PHARMA guidelines, that went into affect after 2001. Companies are no longer able to take physicians on trips, out golfing, to sporting events, etc.

2. I'll tell you exactly what this $13,000 is spent on.

a. food. my physicians are so busy trying to see patients (volume = more money) that they barely have time to feed themselves or their staff (money spent on staff is included in the calculation). my docs don't have time to eat lunch, so when a rep brings food buy, they eat it. some of my offices have 10 staff members, so feeding the office adds up.

what would your CF doctor be like if he saw you for your appointment at 4pm and hadn't eaten lunch? it's an extreme example, but <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because food is brought in by a rep once a month, you might want to see another physician. </b>

b. pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters, books (non-branded, such as a PDR or AMA publication). we also provide billing people with ICD-9 code books (can cost a few hundred dollars). Oh also urine specimin cups. again, <b>if you see a physician that prescribes a drug because his office has pens, clocks, tissue boxes, educational posters and books, you might want to see another physician. </b>

c. speaking engagements. primary care physicians don't have time to keep up on every single drug that comes to the market in the United States (or new studies that are published). so they go out to see their colleagues speak. no specialist is going to take 3 hours out of his night to speak just to be nice. his time away from his family is worth something, so pharma pays for it.

d. samples. companies give out free samples for patients to try before having to fill an Rx. This is also included in the cost spent per physician.

we as CFers see how difficult it is for our CF docs to keep up with all the latest CF info. many of us bring stuff up to the doc that he hasn't seen/read. and this is a pretty specialized disease state. imagine what it's like for GP or IM doc.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...big_pharma.
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/dis...and_big_pharma.
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apparenting.com/distance_needed_between_doctors_and_big_pharma.
<br ">http://www.appar...co...big_ph...
</a></a>
</a>
html </end quote>

watch the source.......



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry is engaged in bribery and pressure tactics to get doctors to promote their products and get patients to ask for them. </end quote>

This is simply not true. No one forces a phsyician to write a drug. It's their choice. And there is no bribery. What PHARMA guidelines allow the pharma industry to give a physician is <u> clearly defined and extremely limited </u>. Big Pharma and biotecs can't do what almost every other industry on the planet does.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Pharmaceutical industry leaders do not care about people! I am sure many of their employees do but the primary focus of the boards of directors and share holders is to make as much money as possible. </end quote>

If you take TOBI, pulmozyme, any IV antibiotic, albuterol or any other drug for that matter, you're an out and out hypocrit.

They're keeping your butt alive, but saying that they don't care about people????? Do you go out of your way not to make sense?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>If you believe anything else you are very naive! </end quote>

I think you have an agenda and are undereducated about this industry. Your statement is rediculous.

But let me ask these questions.

Did the company who made your car do so out of the goodness of their heart? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the computer that you're typing on? Did the manufacturer make it just for you, to make your life easier and more productive? No, they did it to make a profit.

What about the food that you're eating? Was it grown, processed, and put on the store shelf just for your well-being? no, the manufacturer works hard to do so so they can turn a profit.

No company cares about you Pete, or me. Every company is out to turn a profit, and in so doing <b> they make your life better. they give you better products at a cheaper price. </b> This is how economics works.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As a result of these published findings, Hospitals and centers of medical learning are finally putting in place policies that prevent any doctor affiliated with them from accepting gifts or compensation of any kind from the pharmaceutical industry. One of these medical centers is Stanford. One of the reasons I go there if because of their stand on this issue. </end quote>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The nation's water supply and surrounding ecosystems are now in grave danger because of the levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals found in the water. </end quote>

Wow I hope you don't take a single drug, then, Pete. Because if you do, you know what that makes you?

You guessed it. <b><u> a raging hypocirt </b></u>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>His intentions were probably good at the time but market forces and the tremendous potential for profit took over. </end quote>

This is always the problem with government programs and laws.

Everyone has the warm and fuzzy intentions. Unforseen consequences always arise.

Reminds me of Cater in the 70s. Who wouldn't want cheaper gas prices? Oh wooopps, any idiot who has studied economics saw from a mile away that price caps causes shortages.



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The pharmaceutical industry and our health care system are out of control and we are all paying the price!!
</end quote>

I think you're out of control. I challenge you to post an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it....
 

okok

New member
"SIKO

Can you imagine where CF treaments might be if the pharmaceutical corporations thought of drug treatments for CF as half as profitable as say viagra or lipitor??? Unfortunately only about 30,000 people in the US have CF and pharmaceutical corps are more interested in drugs that they can market to a large segment of the population.

This is why i have such a hard time with the arguement that if the government insures you they control you. The government pays for most academic research and they certainly do not control the researchers AND the government is willing to fund research pharmaceutical corporations would never dream of funding. I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.

Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? The US is gargantuan compared to most European countries and is even more densely populated than Canada. If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. Not that it really matters in the huge scheme of things since there is no reason it would have to be an issue in our country. Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.
 

okok

New member
"SIKO

Can you imagine where CF treaments might be if the pharmaceutical corporations thought of drug treatments for CF as half as profitable as say viagra or lipitor??? Unfortunately only about 30,000 people in the US have CF and pharmaceutical corps are more interested in drugs that they can market to a large segment of the population.

This is why i have such a hard time with the arguement that if the government insures you they control you. The government pays for most academic research and they certainly do not control the researchers AND the government is willing to fund research pharmaceutical corporations would never dream of funding. I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.

Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? The US is gargantuan compared to most European countries and is even more densely populated than Canada. If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. Not that it really matters in the huge scheme of things since there is no reason it would have to be an issue in our country. Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.
 

okok

New member
"SIKO

Can you imagine where CF treaments might be if the pharmaceutical corporations thought of drug treatments for CF as half as profitable as say viagra or lipitor??? Unfortunately only about 30,000 people in the US have CF and pharmaceutical corps are more interested in drugs that they can market to a large segment of the population.

This is why i have such a hard time with the arguement that if the government insures you they control you. The government pays for most academic research and they certainly do not control the researchers AND the government is willing to fund research pharmaceutical corporations would never dream of funding. I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.

Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? The US is gargantuan compared to most European countries and is even more densely populated than Canada. If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. Not that it really matters in the huge scheme of things since there is no reason it would have to be an issue in our country. Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.
 

okok

New member
"SIKO

Can you imagine where CF treaments might be if the pharmaceutical corporations thought of drug treatments for CF as half as profitable as say viagra or lipitor??? Unfortunately only about 30,000 people in the US have CF and pharmaceutical corps are more interested in drugs that they can market to a large segment of the population.

This is why i have such a hard time with the arguement that if the government insures you they control you. The government pays for most academic research and they certainly do not control the researchers AND the government is willing to fund research pharmaceutical corporations would never dream of funding. I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.

Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? The US is gargantuan compared to most European countries and is even more densely populated than Canada. If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. Not that it really matters in the huge scheme of things since there is no reason it would have to be an issue in our country. Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.
 

okok

New member
"SIKO

Can you imagine where CF treaments might be if the pharmaceutical corporations thought of drug treatments for CF as half as profitable as say viagra or lipitor??? Unfortunately only about 30,000 people in the US have CF and pharmaceutical corps are more interested in drugs that they can market to a large segment of the population.

This is why i have such a hard time with the arguement that if the government insures you they control you. The government pays for most academic research and they certainly do not control the researchers AND the government is willing to fund research pharmaceutical corporations would never dream of funding. I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.

Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? The US is gargantuan compared to most European countries and is even more densely populated than Canada. If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. Not that it really matters in the huge scheme of things since there is no reason it would have to be an issue in our country. Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.
 

okok

New member
"SIKO

Can you imagine where CF treaments might be if the pharmaceutical corporations thought of drug treatments for CF as half as profitable as say viagra or lipitor??? Unfortunately only about 30,000 people in the US have CF and pharmaceutical corps are more interested in drugs that they can market to a large segment of the population.

This is why i have such a hard time with the arguement that if the government insures you they control you. The government pays for most academic research and they certainly do not control the researchers AND the government is willing to fund research pharmaceutical corporations would never dream of funding. I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.

Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? The US is gargantuan compared to most European countries and is even more densely populated than Canada. If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. Not that it really matters in the huge scheme of things since there is no reason it would have to be an issue in our country. Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>okok</b></i>

I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

</end quote></div>

Wrong again. The CFF has made most of the research for drugs, not the government.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.
</end quote></div>

You're right, you're wrong. Group insurance plans can't refuse insurance to anyone, even CFers. So many CFers have just great private insurance when they work.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? </end quote></div>

I thought so, but you supported the argument that most R&D for drugs isn't just in the US by citing that many big pharma companies are located outside of the US.

I was pointing out that it doesn't matter where they're located.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The US is gargantuan compared to most European country and is even more densely populated than Canada. </end quote></div>

Yes, the United Statues <b> subsidizes </b> R&D for the rest of the world.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. </end quote></div>


Not sure what this is refering to. Let me know and I'll site whatever u need. I just can't figure out what your'e refering to.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.</end quote></div>

There isn't unlimited money. R&D would just come to a hault (like it is with abx) and in 10 years all that would be on the market would be generics anyway.
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>okok</b></i>

I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

</end quote></div>

Wrong again. The CFF has made most of the research for drugs, not the government.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.
</end quote></div>

You're right, you're wrong. Group insurance plans can't refuse insurance to anyone, even CFers. So many CFers have just great private insurance when they work.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? </end quote></div>

I thought so, but you supported the argument that most R&D for drugs isn't just in the US by citing that many big pharma companies are located outside of the US.

I was pointing out that it doesn't matter where they're located.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The US is gargantuan compared to most European country and is even more densely populated than Canada. </end quote></div>

Yes, the United Statues <b> subsidizes </b> R&D for the rest of the world.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. </end quote></div>


Not sure what this is refering to. Let me know and I'll site whatever u need. I just can't figure out what your'e refering to.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.</end quote></div>

There isn't unlimited money. R&D would just come to a hault (like it is with abx) and in 10 years all that would be on the market would be generics anyway.
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>okok</b></i>

I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

</end quote></div>

Wrong again. The CFF has made most of the research for drugs, not the government.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.
</end quote></div>

You're right, you're wrong. Group insurance plans can't refuse insurance to anyone, even CFers. So many CFers have just great private insurance when they work.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? </end quote></div>

I thought so, but you supported the argument that most R&D for drugs isn't just in the US by citing that many big pharma companies are located outside of the US.

I was pointing out that it doesn't matter where they're located.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The US is gargantuan compared to most European country and is even more densely populated than Canada. </end quote></div>

Yes, the United Statues <b> subsidizes </b> R&D for the rest of the world.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. </end quote></div>


Not sure what this is refering to. Let me know and I'll site whatever u need. I just can't figure out what your'e refering to.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.</end quote></div>

There isn't unlimited money. R&D would just come to a hault (like it is with abx) and in 10 years all that would be on the market would be generics anyway.
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>okok</b></i>

I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

</end quote></div>

Wrong again. The CFF has made most of the research for drugs, not the government.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.
</end quote></div>

You're right, you're wrong. Group insurance plans can't refuse insurance to anyone, even CFers. So many CFers have just great private insurance when they work.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? </end quote></div>

I thought so, but you supported the argument that most R&D for drugs isn't just in the US by citing that many big pharma companies are located outside of the US.

I was pointing out that it doesn't matter where they're located.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The US is gargantuan compared to most European country and is even more densely populated than Canada. </end quote></div>

Yes, the United Statues <b> subsidizes </b> R&D for the rest of the world.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. </end quote></div>


Not sure what this is refering to. Let me know and I'll site whatever u need. I just can't figure out what your'e refering to.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.</end quote></div>

There isn't unlimited money. R&D would just come to a hault (like it is with abx) and in 10 years all that would be on the market would be generics anyway.
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>okok</b></i>

I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

</end quote>

Wrong again. The CFF has made most of the research for drugs, not the government.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.
</end quote>

You're right, you're wrong. Group insurance plans can't refuse insurance to anyone, even CFers. So many CFers have just great private insurance when they work.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? </end quote>

I thought so, but you supported the argument that most R&D for drugs isn't just in the US by citing that many big pharma companies are located outside of the US.

I was pointing out that it doesn't matter where they're located.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The US is gargantuan compared to most European country and is even more densely populated than Canada. </end quote>

Yes, the United Statues <b> subsidizes </b> R&D for the rest of the world.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. </end quote>


Not sure what this is refering to. Let me know and I'll site whatever u need. I just can't figure out what your'e refering to.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.</end quote>

There isn't unlimited money. R&D would just come to a hault (like it is with abx) and in 10 years all that would be on the market would be generics anyway.
 

NoExcuses

New member
"SIKO

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>okok</b></i>

I wonder where CF treatments would be today if the government wasn't around to fund research.

</end quote>

Wrong again. The CFF has made most of the research for drugs, not the government.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also isn't more difficult in the US (at the very least more costly?) for CFers to find insurance (private) since most insurers consider the disease a liability? They won't really be able to profit from clients who have CF since the cost of insuring them will by far exceed their premiums and so as far as i understand it many insurance companies refuse or are reluctant to insure cfers. I could be wrong though about that. It has always been a big fear of mine.
</end quote>

You're right, you're wrong. Group insurance plans can't refuse insurance to anyone, even CFers. So many CFers have just great private insurance when they work.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Sakasuka, isn't it obvious that European based pharmaceuticals would get most of their revenue from the US?? </end quote>

I thought so, but you supported the argument that most R&D for drugs isn't just in the US by citing that many big pharma companies are located outside of the US.

I was pointing out that it doesn't matter where they're located.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The US is gargantuan compared to most European country and is even more densely populated than Canada. </end quote>

Yes, the United Statues <b> subsidizes </b> R&D for the rest of the world.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> If you could cite references making the comparison per capita than that evidence might be more compelling. </end quote>


Not sure what this is refering to. Let me know and I'll site whatever u need. I just can't figure out what your'e refering to.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Pharmaceutical corporations would probably lobby the government so that they would keep buying brand names anyway.</end quote>

There isn't unlimited money. R&D would just come to a hault (like it is with abx) and in 10 years all that would be on the market would be generics anyway.
 

mom2lillian

New member
"SIKO

Let me simply re-iterate my previous comment. THere are HUGE flaws in the US system, I dont think too many poeple are arguing that there isnt. THe point is that socialized medicine in the USA would be a disaster. SOme countries can do a decent job at it but I dont think we could, it would be as Scott so fabulously pointed out a disaster!

Who else is out there and what does your country provide you with?
 

mom2lillian

New member
"SIKO

Let me simply re-iterate my previous comment. THere are HUGE flaws in the US system, I dont think too many poeple are arguing that there isnt. THe point is that socialized medicine in the USA would be a disaster. SOme countries can do a decent job at it but I dont think we could, it would be as Scott so fabulously pointed out a disaster!

Who else is out there and what does your country provide you with?
 
Top