Welcome to the club.

I would just like to point out that a great way for partially fixing the existing system is to take the patent for life-saving drugs away from pharmaceudical companies IF the research for the drug was in any way, shape, or form funded by the taxpayers.

So... you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.

Hello Synn:

You're coming along nicely. That's a wonderful idea. However, in terms of medical care, I have a belief that NO ONE should profit from anyone else's misery...

Really, Synn... Imagine the world gets hit with a really bad epidemic... ONE company has the patent on the ONLY vaccine that can save the world... THAT company, of course, wants to PROFIT from its patent.

Do you think the patent WILL be respected? Do you think it SHOULD be respected?

excon

PS> Will somebody please tell the Wolverine that I qualified my response above with the WORDS "in terms of medical care"... I'm sure he'll say that I said NO ONE should make ANY profits EVER. But, you'll direct him to the WORDS, won't you, as though that'll make a difference?? Hah!

No... I actually agree with you Ex that companies should NOT have the exclusive rights to life-saving medical equipment or pharmaceudicals.

If there's a shot out there that can save lives--it should be used to do so, not to profit on human misery.

HOWEVER--the way to go about that is to abolish the patent system on medications, not to make it so that the companies (notice the plural there) making them can't afford to do so.

Right now, I believe that no company WILL find a cure for, say, cancer or AIDS, because it's more profitable to TREAT those diseases.

Get rid of the PATENT issue, and all of a sudden those companies have to compete with each other again, and that will lead to lower costs.

Excellent idea.

I'm not sure about getting rid of patents though. Does this apply to all patents? Without patents, who is going to put the time, money, r and d to come up with new ideas, technologies, products? Maybe reduce the number of years a patent is enforced?


G&P

Your words, excon:

Well, the fact is that ALL of it is true.

Obama did all those things. All of them were violations of contract and bankruptcy law.

So... all of them are TRUE.

Aren't they?! Yep, they are.

And based on that fact, Obama SHOULD be impeached. He broke the law and violated contractual agreements. But he won't be. Not because he didn't break the law, which he demonstrably did (even you can't deny that fact... it's been reported all over the newspapers), but because nobody would be able to get such an impeachment proceeding to go anywhere. After all, he only broke the law to screw over corporations and rich folks, so that's OK, right? Impeachment would be a political dead end because the Dems control Congress and nobody cares that a bunchg of corporations and rich folks got screwed.

That means that YOU were wrong in your statement that "none of it is true." Because it turns out that ALL of it is true.

Now admit it and move on.

But you can't. You never can.

Wrong on health care.

Wrong on the role of government.

Wrong on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wrong about Bush being a Dufus.

And wrong in saying that I was incorrect on the facts.

And NEVER able to admit it.

Elliot

Not ALL patents--but can you imagine where we'd be today if the polio vaccine, or the smallpox vaccine, or the MMR every child gets was under PATENT, and only ONE company could make them--and could charge whatever they wanted for them?

And LOTS of people have come up with new ideas for the simple reason of making life better/easier, with no thought to the money involved.

Frankly, the government needs to stop outsourcing the military before it starts taking back medicine, in my opinion. But--if you're looking for a place to improve the current system, then stopping major pharmaceudical companies from taking government grants paid for with taxpayer money from PATENTING those drugs instead of supplying them to the public that paid for their research would be a good place to start.

Good luck discovering all those new drugs in the basement labs of the universities.

You are right about drugs discovered using grant $$ but surely you are not saying that a pharmaceutical company that incurred all the expenses with no guarantee of return should not get some exclusive use of the product on the hope of a return of their investment ,and profit on the side ? Venture capitalists will find better uses of their resources me thinks .

Synnen,

There's this thing called "licensing" wherein a holder of a patent can allow other companies to make, promote, use or manufacture the patented item. That means that there can be more than one manufacturer for a product, as long as the patent-holder is properly compensated as per any licensing agreements between the parties.

That means that there is rarely a reason for a vaccine to be held back from production by more than one company.

Furthermore, drug patents tend to be relatively short-lived compared to other intellectual properties.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument against patents for drugs.

Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug?

Here's a rough breakdown:

Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year.

Animal screening in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year.

Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year.

If it doesn't kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year.

If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year.

Over the entire term of testing, that's roughly $2 Billion for the cost of the development of ONE DRUG. And for every drug that makes it to market, there are literally HUNDREDS of drugs that fail at some point during their tests, each of which costs MORE money. But those failures are a necessary part of the development process... without those failures, new developments wouldn't happen.

Without patents, how are drug companies to recoup the costs of developing these drugs? If we don't allow the company that spent all that money to make it all back with some profit added, they aren't going to develop any other new drugs. Because companies are not in the business of spending $2 billion to not make any of it back. They would rather exit the business of developing drugs than stay in it for a $2 billion a pop loss.

Would you spend $2 billion if there was no mechanism for you to recoup that money? I'm guessing you wouldn't.

THAT is the reason that patents on intellectual properties exist... to allow companies to make back the money they spent on all those drugs that they managed to develop AND the costs of all the ones that FAILED as well. Because no matter how benevolent, kind, charitable, and compassionate people are, there comes a point when they decide that they can no longer afford to spend money and never see any of it come back to them. There's a point at which they go broke and can't afford to develop more meds.

Patents are a very necessary economic part of the development of new products. As is profit, and for much the same reason.

Elliot

You've heard the line that every American deserves the same type of health care that members of Congress receive, this is the kind of health care they receive. "And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was," if the member needed to be treated at say, Johns Hopkins.

No wonder they (including the President) won't commit to using the plans they're proposing for us.

Meanwhile, the reports of the public option being dead may be premature. Two reports, one from Human Events and one from Heritage, suggest Senate Democrats plan on ramming it through next week by attaching it "to a House-passed non-healthcare bill." Obviously they've forgotten the month of August and don't care what their constituents want.

Following up on my earlier post on this pathetic Jerk named Alan Grayson (D-FL), who said the Republican Health care plan is "don't get sick" and "die quickly." Grayson of course not only refuses to apologize for his vitriol but now calls Republicans "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging neanderthals."

Pelosi, another one of the most pathetic jerks in congressional history, who teared up over the possibility of violence stemming from the health care debate rhetoric, who censured Joe Wilson AFTER he apologized the President, and who personally impugned American citizens as Nazis, says there's no need for Grayson to apologize.

I suppose it's easy to hold your own to a higher standard when you have no standards, anything is a step up, right?

Well Grayson did apologize, but not to those he insulted. He apologized to the dead, all those gazillions of Americans that die every year because they don't have health insurance.

His outright fabrications and insults to Republicans aside, you'd think a Jewish guy would have some grasp of and respect for the term "holocaust." When did we start systematically murdering millions of Americans? Or should I just ask am I the only one here that finds extremely hypocritical that a member of the party that wholeheartedly endorses a practice that has killed over 49 million innocent children since 1973 would dare link Republicans to an imagined health care holocaust?

How in God's name can any of you ever trust these Democrats with your lives? How can you give them even an ounce of credibility?

Congratulations to Alan Grayson for telling it like it is and fighting fire with fire. He is of course correct. Watch the whole Situation Room where he sets all the panelists in their place. We need more like him.

Here's the video: YouTube - Rep Alan Grayson: Republicans Are "Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthals"

How can you not only defend but celebrate this pathetic, lying jerk? His point is they can't get anything done because Republicans are dragging their feet.

He's a pathetic, lying, sack of cow excrement and you think he's "telling it like it is?" HELLO! Not only has Obama not met with Republicans on this since May, but Democrats don't need a single Republican to pass their legislation and 56 percent of Americans are opposed to their proposals. That's telling it like it is.

You and all your republican friends here are the lying sacks of excrements.
Democrats wants to do this in a bi-partisan way and you oppose that?
Also " A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan"

So tell us, NK, what overtures have the Dems made to work with the Reps on health care?

And as it turns out, Grayson's description of the "Republican plan" is actually more fitting for the Dems plan.

The Dem's big fix for cutting the cost of health care is "preventive medicine"... in other words "don't get sick".

And if we do get sick, the Dem's big solution is to have old people sign DNRs, DNIs and Living Wills that tell doctors not to administer care... in other words, "die quickly".

It's all right there in HR 3200.

So in fact, Grayson was describing HIS health care plan, not ours.

Elliot

How do you get away here with so many personal attacks against other AMHD members?

What overtures have they made, huh? Tell us. If they want a bipartisan approach why do they keep trying to ram it through under the radar?

That's obviously a very confused sampling, 30% think Obamacare will make Medicare worse while only 15% think it will make it better, yet they want a Medicare type option? And 59% don't understand the plans at all. That's a real smart group of folks they sampled there.

Hello:

He interprets the Republican plan as "don't get sick". It certainly as close to the truth as the Republican interpretation of the Democrats wanting to kill granny.

By the way, what is the Republican bill number?? What is it again?? You can't find it?? You say they don't HAVE a bill. Really? The Republicans haven't introduced their OWN health care bill?? I thought they had a plan.. They COULD introduce a bill, can't they?? I mean, there's no LAW that says the minority party can't introduce legislation.

Hmmmm... Don't get sick is looking much like the truth.

excon

I agree with Excon. I am not aware of any republican plan to reform health care. My impression is that they want everything to stay the way it is. That was the whole point of the summer town hall shoutings, yes? Don't change anything, don't talk about this issue. Just shout down anyone who wants to discuss how we could make things better. A large majority of Americans want reform.

You really believe the Democrats?

The Dems are rejecting every plan, every proposal, every amendment Republicans are putting forth. Harry Reid, when confronted with a bill to allow re-importation of drugs from Canada said it was an "inopportune time" to consider lowering prescription drug costs while the health care debate is taking place. After censuring Joe Wilson and re-wording the bill to correct what he accused Obama of lying about, they've now rejected a Republican amendment to require photo ID's for health benefits leaving the doors wide open for giving coverage to illegals anyway.

These Dems have ZERO credibility and Grayson is now their celebrated poster child for that.

Or just ignore the facts and lie through their teeth. See my last post.