The ugly face of capitalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah I saw that, pretty crappy, apparently its the only drug for that illness so its pay up or else.
 
Something missing from that story; surely as a 62 year old drug no patent exist on its production which is 20 years in the USA iirc from my days at a tier 1 pharmaceutical company. Or effectively on average only 12 years of actual sales.

As such the face of capatilism for a £1 to produce drug should offer plenty of scope for competition. Now I'm not familiar with this particular drug as my areas used to be in different verticals, but something is really odd in this story.
 
I was wondering about the patent issue as well, they aren't like copyright. Journalism failure in not explaining it properly (also applies to the Guardian which also similarly fails to explain how a 62 year old drug is still under patent).
 
The people behind the firm in question have "form" -

It's a relatively new start-up using hedge-fund cash to leverage value from "unappreciated" drugs developed by other companies. They basically fish for essential drugs for minority conditions, buy the rights and hike the price. Rinse and repeat.

Expired patents don't necessarily encourage competition, not for low demand niche products. There are still high barrier to entry costs - your version using your process still has to be validated, and you're marketing against an established product that's already got 100% market penetration. An you know they can slash their costs to bare bones and put you out of the market before you start.
 
On expired patents..

Someone once asked the CEO of Coca-Cola for the secret recipe. He asked what they would do with it? - even if they had the recipe they couldn't make it cheaper (Coke has spent 100+ years refining the manufacturing process and distribution efficiencies) and even if it tasted exactly the same and cost the same, it still wouldn't be Coke in the eyes of the consumer. Why buy not-Coke when you can buy Coke? It's near enough the same with pharmaceuticals.

The reason you can buy some generic expired patent pharmaceuticals is because these are high volume, high demand and the demand was still growing faster than the original patent holder could provide for - e.g. aspirin, paracetamol.
 
onomatopoeia said:
I was wondering about the patent issue as well, they aren't like copyright. Journalism failure in not explaining it properly (also applies to the Guardian which also similarly fails to explain how a 62 year old drug is still under patent).
Click to expand...

dejongj said:
Something missing from that story; surely as a 62 year old drug no patent exist on its production which is 20 years in the USA iirc from my days at a tier 1 pharmaceutical company. Or effectively on average only 12 years of actual sales.

As such the face of capatilism for a £1 to produce drug should offer plenty of scope for competition. Now I'm not familiar with this particular drug as my areas used to be in different verticals, but something is really odd in this story.
Click to expand...

Clearly the drug is still not under patent but as a low usage drug it would not benefit any pharmaceutical to develop their own version.

ST4 said:
Is it not normal that if someone has something you want or need, you pay them for it?
Click to expand...

Including the NHS?
 
It's apparently the only drug approved for use for that illness in the US rather than whether it's patented that is the root issue. Somebody else could produce it but would presumably have to pay to get it approved.
 
ST4 said:
Collectively we pay for it through lots and lots of taxation and those who pay lots of tax and don't need treatment have the joy of paying for health treatment for those who might not have paid any tax at all.

Seems fair?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Is it really fair on someone who pays lots of tax but is fit and healthy and never needs the NHS ends up paying for someone who needs very expensive treatment and that person might never had paid very much at all in tax.

Might be nice, but for who? Not the person paying in heaps and getting nothing back from it. Just a thought, just because someone can afford to pay doesn't mean they should.
 
Alastair said:
Expired patents don't necessarily encourage competition, not for low demand niche products. There are still high barrier to entry costs - your version using your process still has to be validated, and you're marketing against an established product that's already got 100% market penetration. An you know they can slash their costs to bare bones and put you out of the market before you start.
Click to expand...

In general terms the US v Uk markets are a little different when a drug patent expires, normally in the US you expect to see generics ready to go when patent expires and the original products sales fall to almost 0 overnight. Which doesn't happen so much in Europe
 
ST4 said:
Is it really fair on someone who pays lots of tax but is fit and healthy and never needs the NHS ends up paying for someone who needs very expensive treatment and that person might never had paid very much at all in tax.
Click to expand...

You've just fairly precisely described insurance. Also, the lottery.
 
ST4 said:
Is it really fair on someone who pays lots of tax but is fit and healthy and never needs the NHS ends up paying for someone who needs very expensive treatment and that person might never had paid very much at all in tax.

Might be nice, but for who? Not the person paying in heaps and getting nothing back from it. Just a thought, just because someone can afford to pay doesn't mean they should.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately circumstances change, and the fit person may become ill or develop a condition that requires treatment.
 
kendo1 said:
Unfortunately circumstances change, and the fit person may become ill or develop a condition that requires treatment.
Click to expand...

Yes but if that fit person has paid lots of tax and NI they should get treated.

I've often thought the NHS should be there for those who've paid tax or for children of parents who've paid tax and not there for anyone who's not paid tax or children of parents who've not paid tax.
 
Mr Bump said:
yeah I saw that, pretty crappy, apparently its the only drug for that illness so its pay up or else.
Click to expand...

It's not the only drug for that illness.
 
ST4 said:
Yes but if that fit person has paid lots of tax and NI they should get treated.

I've often thought the NHS should be there for those who've paid tax or for children of parents who've paid tax and not there for anyone who's not paid tax or children of parents who've not paid tax.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is able to pay - due to circumstances that are not always surmountable.
If circumstances changed for you and you were unable to pay (or if it happened when you were younger before you started paying) should you go without treatment?
 
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
 
ST4 said:
Yes but if that fit person has paid lots of tax and NI they should get treated.

I've often thought the NHS should be there for those who've paid tax or for children of parents who've paid tax and not there for anyone who's not paid tax or children of parents who've not paid tax.
Click to expand...
Everyone does pay tax. You try going a day without paying some sort of tax.

Should the disabled who need the NHS most not receive free health care?
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Yes but if that fit person has paid lots of tax and NI they should get treated.

I've often thought the NHS should be there for those who've paid tax or for children of parents who've paid tax and not there for anyone who's not paid tax or children of parents who've not paid tax.
Click to expand...

Now you've described a savings account. But hang on - imagine I pay lots of tax and don't get sick? How is that fair?

Make it easier and just pay at point of use (reducing tax etc accordingly). Then people who need it, pay for it if they can afford it. If you don't need it or can't afford it then don't pay for it (and don't get it).

That's what the Victorians basically did. And they all died.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Now you've described a savings account. But hang on - imagine I pay lots of tax and don't get sick? How is that fair?

Make it easier and just pay at point of use (reducing tax etc accordingly). Then people who need it, pay for it if they can afford it. If you don't need it or can't afford it then don't pay for it (and don't get it).

That's what the Victorians basically did. And they all died.
Click to expand...

Death is a certainty.
 
ST4 said:
I've often thought the NHS should be there for those who've paid tax or for children of parents who've paid tax and not there for anyone who's not paid tax or children of parents who've not paid tax.
Click to expand...


I love the thought process that leads you to the conclusion it's reasonable to have a section of society walk round untreated, with potentially serious communicable disease and unvaccinated. Even looking at that from a 100% self interest viewpoint you must see the flaws?
 
boyfalldown said:
I love the thought process that leads you to the conclusion it's reasonable to have a section of society walk round untreated, with potentially serious communicable disease and unvaccinated. Even looking at that from a 100% self interest viewpoint you must see the flaws?
Click to expand...

Not hugely, not if the great un tax paying community steadily drop off.
 
ST4 said:
Not hugely, not if the great un tax paying community steadily drop off.
Click to expand...

But when that was the norm disease spread to everyone, we stopped that happening with universal healthcare, and we filled those hospitals with state sponsored newly trained doctors, that seemed to work pretty well.
 
ST4 said:
And now we are skint and broke.
Click to expand...
Because we bailed out a broken fiercely capitalist system that failed, but suggesting that the NHS is broken and expensive makes it easier to sell off the infrastructure to our rich mates who we can then subsidise out of our taxes and they can pretend they're 'private enterprise'.
 
A warning has been issued for this post
Phil V said:
Because we bailed out a broken fiercely capitalist system that failed, but suggesting that the NHS is broken and expensive makes it easier to sell off the infrastructure to our rich mates who we can then subsidise out of our taxes and they can pretend they're 'private enterprise'.
Click to expand...

The problem with socialism is when you run out of other peoples money to spend.

Yes, the late and great Mrs Thatcher's finest comments seem lost on you.
 
ST4 said:
Is it really fair on someone who pays lots of tax but is fit and healthy and never needs the NHS ends up paying for someone who needs very expensive treatment and that person might never had paid very much at all in tax.

Might be nice, but for who? Not the person paying in heaps and getting nothing back from it. Just a thought, just because someone can afford to pay doesn't mean they should.
Click to expand...
But that is insurance all round. Whether it be national government managed or be it private. It isn't any different.
 
dejongj said:
But that is insurance all round. Whether it be national government managed or be it private. It isn't any different.
Click to expand...

Insurance requires premium payments and the better the cover, the more you pay. Same should be for the NHS, where people who have paid or pay more tax get preferential treatment and those who have paid nothing get nothing.
 
ST4 said:
Insurance requires premium payments and the better the cover, the more you pay. Same should be for the NHS, where people who have paid or pay more tax get preferential treatment and those who have paid nothing get nothing.
Click to expand...
Not all insurances operate on that basis. And everyone is paying in to the NHS in some form or another. Just like not everyone pays the same amount for their car insurance, yet does get the same treatment at a basic level.

Don't forget that the NHS does provide upgrade options as well. When i required it I happily paid extra to bypass the queue. Not something possible for all unfortunately as undoubtedly others that were in my situation would have been equally wanting to know for certain this week opposed to in six months time.

No, I really don't get the distinction to are attempting to draw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top