|
Ponsonby Britt posted:Here's a question for the TPP defenders in the thread: What's your response to this critique? Doctors Without Borders is calling the TPP "the most harmful trade pact ever It helps pharmaceutical companies actually see a return on the extremely high investments that biologics require, which leads them to actually invest in creating biologics. Doctors Without Borders is a great group, but their primary interest is in cheap medicines, not in development of new treatments. They worry about inexpensive versions of existing treatments, not about what new treatments might be found. Drug companies don't develop drugs out of charity - they do it because they expect to be able to receive some return on the investment. The point of the patent system isn't to promote competition while the item is patented - it's to promote development of new ideas and to encourage post-patent cooperation. If you dislike that system and want some other system (public prizes or similar), that's fine and it's also not a reason to be against TPP. TPP doesn't bar public research and public domain biologics, but it does (at least, in the leaks I've seen) require that you receive a minimum time on market after regulatory approval. Because pharma patents don't correlate well to the regulatory process (even with term extension for approval delay, you aren't getting anywhere near 20 years and typically not even 10 years) it provides alternate protection to drugs with long approval processes. And even then, you can still make a generic during data exclusivity - you just have to spend the money to independently prove your drug is safe rather than relying on the first comers' clinical trials. (And just one more thought: the pharma companies don't charge 11k a month in other countries, nor would they be able to after TPP. They price based on ability to pay.)
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Kalman posted:It helps pharmaceutical companies actually see a return on the extremely high investments that biologics require, which leads them to actually invest in creating biologics. hahahahahahaha (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Gee where could money for scientific research possibly come from if we don't let drug company executives divert the earnings of desperate Africans and SE Asians into new yachts and learjets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:hahahahahahaha Kalman should get a job lobbying for the TPP, he seems to get why it's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gee where could money for scientific research possibly come from if we don't let drug company executives divert the earnings of desperate Africans and SE Asians into new yachts and learjets. We don't. We let them divert your paycheck and mine. Desperate Africans and SE Asians don't get charged 11k/week for a drug because pharma companies know they can't pay it; that's the whole reason there was a fight about reimportation a while back. (If you say "the government" will fund product development, then I'll laugh at you after pointing out TPP doesn't prevent a government from doing exactly that. If you say "universities", then I'm going to ask where you think they'd get the funding given the huge cuts they're already facing and also point out that they're some of the worst trolls out there these days.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
If drug companies can make more money selling drugs for $11k a year to the upper classes of poor countries rather than selling it cheaply so more people can afford to pay they will do it, that's why they want the treaty. And the government can fund research, it's not the chemists and scientists who are making millions here, it's an entirely superfluous owner class, we can hire chemists as well as they can. Well I guess the government could fund drug research, assuming we're not dumb enough to sign a treaty written by corporate lobbyists that will let companies collect compensation from governments that hurt profits by providing new public services.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
They charge those astronomical prices because US insurance companies will pay. US insurance companies have gigantic buckets of money, since US health care is just so outrageously overpriced anyway.. Countries with price controls on their drugs do just fine with their own domestic research industries. In the rest of the world, they negotiate with the entire government (or all insurers at once), and this sort of thing keeps prices down in other countries. There is no evidence that we do more drug research per capita than any other wealthy first-world nation, or that our paying these outrageous sums of money for drugs subsidizes anyone other than pharmaceutical execs. There is evidence, however, that TPP will increase drug prices for the developing world, which would be a loving miserable thing. New drugs will get developed no matter what, because pharmaceutical companies want money, and so they need new drugs. They will continue to develop them just as they always have everywhere else in the world. EDIT: In case you think I'm bullshitting take a look here at the R&D expenditures vs their overall revenues. A random example: Eli Lilly spent approximately 24% of its revenues on research, which is apparently on the high end! I'd say they're doing fine and will continue to do fine even if the TPP doesn't go through. I mean, think about it. They're still doing extremely expensive and difficult research right now even without the TPP. Drug companies don't need the TPP to do just fine, but hoo boy they would sure love to gently caress over some developing country for some extra scratch. They're like cokeheads trying to find their next hit, and it's loving sad. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Yup there is no reason to let them screw the developing world on drug prices. If the companies go Galt and take their ball and go home, we can hire their chemists with public money. But the companies won't do that. They'll bitch and bluster and then keep on because they can still make billions billing first worlders as they have always done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If drug companies can make more money selling drugs for $11k a year to the upper classes of poor countries rather than selling it cheaply so more people can afford to pay they will do it, that's why they want the treaty. The chemists and scientists do pretty drat well. And the government could fund drug research whether we sign the treaty or not - it just won't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Maybe if drug companies could make a profit researching and producing drugs which primarily affect poor third world people instead of only drugs which primarily benefit rich first world people, we'd have a cure for malaria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
And drug companies will continue to make drugs whether we sign the treaty or not, so all this "but HIV+ Botswanans will steal their profits  " pearl-clutching is irrelevant.And yeah the chemists "do pretty well", they make good money, but not tens of millions executive money. Why are you conflating the six-figure salaries of the people who invent the drugs with the 8-figure compensation of the rentier class collecting the profits, that just confuses the issues. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
I have a hard time understanding how Africans are going to be affected by a treaty that has no African countries involved, even as observers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I have a hard time understanding how Africans are going to be affected by a treaty that has no African countries involved, even as observers. Yeah this is dumb, there are plenty of poor people that stand to get hosed pretty hard in the countries that are participating
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The chemists and scientists do pretty drat well. It's a middle-class salary but it's nothing special: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Eli-Lilly-Chemist-Salaries-E223_D_KO10,17.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Merck-Staff-Chemist-Salaries-E438_D_KO6,19.htm You could make considerably higher salaries if you were writing code at a significant software firm, let alone if you went into something ~*truly productive*~ like management, finance, or patent law 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And drug companies will continue to make drugs whether we sign the treaty or not, so all this "but HIV+ Botswanans will steal their profits Why would drug companies attempt to cure malaria, for instance, if all the countries with significant malaria infection will not protect their intellectual property?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Why would drug companies attempt to cure malaria, for instance, if all the countries with significant malaria infection will not protect their intellectual property? Wait a minute. Is this ironic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I have a hard time understanding how Africans are going to be affected by a treaty that has no African countries involved, even as observers. Probably the same way that generics are going to become repatented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Why would drug companies attempt to cure malaria, for instance, if all the countries with significant malaria infection will not protect their intellectual property? I'm sorry, how are people too poor to pay for drugs going to provide a profit motive to develop them in any case? Like how does this work, does a patent trick Malaysian factory workers into revealing their stash of leprechaun gold and rare oriental spices or what. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(And just one more thought: the pharma companies don't charge 11k a month in other countries, nor would they be able to after TPP. They price based on ability to pay.) For treating HIV for example they're not paying $11k because by and large they're using cheap generics. If those cheap generics were taken away which the TPP might do then HIV care would be majorly affected, which is why HIV treatment organizations have come out against the deal as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
But won't someone think of the
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm sorry, how are people too poor to pay for drugs going to provide a profit motive to develop them in any case? Death from treatable illness drives them to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm sorry, how are people too poor to pay for drugs going to provide a profit motive to develop them in any case? Malaysian GDP/capita is around 11k / year which while poor by US standards still represents a substantial market for a Pharma company. Pharma companies might start attempting to treat diseases endemic to that population if they reasonably expect to recoup their research costs, and patent protections allow them to do so. Your position seems to be "don't worry, Malaysia can keep free riding off medicines developed for the first world" which isn't terrible, as far as defenses of the status who go, but will never produce a malaria cure because malaria doesnt infect many in the first world. The only way to produce that cure is to incentivize drug companies to make one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Malaysian GDP/capita is around 11k / year which while poor by US standards still represents a substantial market for a Pharma company. This is not the relevant number when talking about whether people can afford drugs, you want to look at median household income. (3600RM/month, or about $960/month, or $11,520/yr per household, significantly less than $11,000/yr per capita) Unless you're saying that Malaysia should enact high taxes to subsidize the drugs, essentially using public money to fund their development. But wait, if we're funding drug development with public money, then why do we need to wastefully funnel any of it to private profits when we could just hire the scientists to invent the drugs. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unless you're saying that Malaysia should enact high taxes to subsidize the drugs, essentially using public money to fund their development. But wait, if we're funding drug development with public money, then why do we need to wastefully funnel any of it to private profits when we could just hire the scientists to invent the drugs. That's what India does and it works pretty well on a median household income of <$3.5K.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That's what India does and it works pretty well on a median household income of <$3.5K. Mostly India free-rides off patented inventions because the patent system in India is a joke even before you account for some India-specific laws that favor generics. Let's not pretend there's a ton of new drugs coming out of Indian pharma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Mostly India free-rides off patented inventions because the patent system in India is a joke even before you account for some India-specific laws that favor generics. Sure there are, example: Centchroman. Once-weekly non-hormonal contraceptive with superior side-effects profile to the COCP, made available for $1 a month. It's even getting studied in the West because it appears to be effective against certain types of breast cancer Now you'll probably equivocate over the definition of "tons" because that's not a true scotsman. But it's a problem that faces the Indian public that doesn't see a lot of novel research from the private sector, and it's an example of the state going ahead and bringing a drug to market to fix it and providing it at a nominal cost (basically free). If you're going to argue that they should be doing more of it I'd definitely agree with you. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Sure there are, example: Centchroman. Once-weekly non-hormonal contraceptive with superior side-effects profile to the COCP, made available for $1 a month. It's even getting studied in the West because it appears to be effective against certain types of breast cancer One drug first introduced in 1991. I think I will stay comfortable with my statement. I'll even restate it: the vast majority of pharmaceutical work is being done in countries with strong IP laws. What's more, Indian pharma has actually started doing original research in the last decade - right around the time they acceded to TRIPS and were required to allow product patents, not just process patents. Before that, the majority of the research was into improving manufacturing processes (which could be protected), with little research into new compounds (which could not.) E: I'm totally okay with the state bringing old compounds to market at low prices to avoid some of the issues that have recently cropped up with regards to old drugs (e.g., the doxy and digoxin price spikes), but those are circumstances where a manufacturer takes advantage of temporary lacks of competition to extract rents; that's not a situation that would be any better in the absence of patent protection, or the case of a rejection of TPP. Kalman fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:One drug first introduced in 1991. I think I will stay comfortable with my statement. I'll even restate it: the vast majority of pharmaceutical work is being done in countries with strong IP laws. This is so loving stupid a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' I can't believe that even you can't see it. And it's not as if the bullshit rationales that the drug industry(and its guard labor) give to justify the vast rents they extract from the economy are going to be any more persuasive in this thread than in any other. Do we really need to drag out the ol' profit margin and R&D spending numbers to prove that the contention that poor suffering GlaxoSmithKline just wants to help Vietnamese peasants but mean ol' Big Labor won't let them is a load of horseshit? Hey Kalman, the vast majority of pharmaceutical work is being done in countries that have carried out genocides against ethnic minorities. I'm just sayin' 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is so loving stupid a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' I can't believe that even you can't see it. And it's not as if the bullshit rationales that the drug industry(and its guard labor) give to justify the vast rents they extract from the economy are going to be any more persuasive in this thread than in any other. Do we really need to drag out the ol' profit margin and R&D spending numbers to prove that the contention that poor suffering GlaxoSmithKline just wants to help Vietnamese peasants but mean ol' Big Labor won't let them is a load of horseshit? I don't think GSK wants to help Vietnamese peasants. I think they want to make money. I just am not dumb enough to think that they're going to continue to engage in pharma research outside of the environs where that research can be protected in ways that will make them money. One reason I think this: the fact that large pharma companies used to be in India, and left when India changed their laws to disallow compound patents. It's almost like an actual experiment showing that IP laws do affect behavior, that patent protection is considered valuable by drug makers, and if the desired behavior is to generate new drugs, we should look at laws that do that, not laws that don't. Hence TPP harmonization provisions, which are very much aimed at forcing people into regimes more like the U.S. IP regimes. Which work pretty well in pharma. And "vast rents" my rear end. As I've posted before, pharma profit margins are in line with comparable high tech companies. The bullshit BBC story everyone cites to downplays the fact that 2013 was a huge outlier year for Pfizer due to one-off accounting profits and that their actual margin once you strip out the 10bn they realized in spinning off Zoetis and some litigation revenue from Teva was around 22-23%. Which is comparable to Apple, MS, Intel, or Google.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
how real are the environmental protections in the TPP? Particularly, these two points: quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It helps pharmaceutical companies actually see a return on the extremely high investments that biologics require, which leads them to actually invest in creating biologics. Hm yes and allowing Pharma companies to cling to old patents for longer in order to boost profits will certainly boost innovation because Hint: Most "innovation" on drugs isn't done at Pharma companies, it's done at research universities, who see far less monetary return on the research than the companies will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:how real are the environmental protections in the TPP? Considering that Brunei is a signatory to the TPP, I kind of doubt that environmental protections are all that strong, especially when it comes to fossil fuels. The Sultan of Brunei didn't get to be one of the richest men in the world from wind farms. There's also the issue that Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. are sitting on top of 50 million year old swamps, nobody is about to kill that free money train.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:how real are the environmental protections in the TPP? Like every other drat thing, we kinda need to wait a year for an actual agreement to exist to determine whether any of that will be true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
The "old patents" poo poo is just Hatch-Waxman, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The "old patents" poo poo is just Hatch-Waxman, right? Yeah, the entire thing is basically Hatch-Waxman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:how real are the environmental protections in the TPP? Everything good will be edited out and everything bad will stay forever because most cynical = better than.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And drug companies will continue to make drugs whether we sign the treaty or not, so all this "but HIV+ Botswanans will steal their profits Eli Lilly pays their execs about 33 million per year, which sounds like an enormous number until you realize they spend over a billion dollars every 3 months on research and development costs alone. Like yes, it's ridiculous that people make that much but to the company it's just another expense that generates revenue every year. In pharmas case the cost is usually not even visible on the expense report pie chart. The yearly salary of all execs in the company combined is 1% the cost of developing a new medication. Ponsonby Britt posted:
Drugs are just that incredibly expensive to produce-- when a country gets a deal like that they are being subsidized by the people paying the full cost. I mean there's other reasons why US medical costs are through the roof but the US footing most the bill for new medicine development is part of it. Doesn't even have to be an american pharma company, foreign ones are still relying on US insurance co's to pay for a bulk of the RD costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Why are you talking about executive salaries, do you think that's how capitalists extract wealth from a company? Eli Lilly paid out $2.2 billion in dividends last year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Universities and non-profits still do all the real R&D work for most pharmaceuticals, that is an ancient excuse. Also, yeah executive salaries themselves have been a red herring for a eon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 19:22
|
|
