Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Each pill costs twenty cents to manufacture...except the first one. The first one cost 30 million (at least). Bringing a new medication from research through trials and testing to the market costs a boatload of cash.

LordofHats wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Each pill costs twenty cents to manufacture...except the first one. The first one cost 30 million (at least). Bringing a new medication from research through trials and testing to the market costs a boatload of cash.

Not including the three or four other 30 million dollar pills that never amounted to a commercially viable product?

Sure. To be clear I'm not trying to defend all of the pharmaceutical industries (I'm not calling it big pharma) practices or pricing, but the first part on cost doesn't give a full picture of what the actual costs are.

warpcrafter wrote:Remember, the ancestors of Big Pharma are the same criminals who started out importing Heroin and Morphine into the pre-revolution Colonies. They're still the same snake-oil salesmen. If they really spent so much time and money developing these poisons, then why do they have so many side effects, many of which are worse than the ailment that they allegedly treat?

olympia wrote:To the three or four posters who mention R&D---It is well known that most pharma companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't change the fact that it costs more to develop the first pill then the subsequent production of the pill. Yes, the pill may cost .20 to produce after the first one is created, tested, sent through trials, and approved by the FDA, but that first one costs a ton of money. I think you didn't read what we were talking about as one has little to do with the other as to the point being discussed, that is, initial pill vs mass production cost.

Also, i don't know if it is 'well know', so if you can produce some reputable sources on it I'd be happy to see them. Also, as Polonius pointed out, even if it were true, is that unusual or fairly normal?

olympia wrote:Some of you folks really do live in a bubble...

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

You only answered part of the question. I guess others of us live in their own bubbles. I'm not really sure how asking a question means a person is 'living in a bubble'. No one on here knows everything about every subject, i mean, I know you sure don't, but when you do it is nice of you to share as you are now. Your use of 'living in a bubble' would seem to imply that we either wouldn't inquire or we would have just refuted you outright. Instead we asked you to tell us more and you get all snippy.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
And you're qualified to make this statement in any way, shape, or form how?

Personal opinion

Well that is how medical research usually works.

halonachos wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So you don't have expertise on pharmaceuticals needed for healthcare. Gotcha.

More than most do actually. I'm quite familiar with the manipulation of US patent laws as well as first line treatments with highly addictive drugs by the medial community. Its all about the degree of action said drug has on the mesolimbic pathway pathway.

What is your qualification for attempted Strawman?

Pshaw, I have a Stedman's Medical Dictionary and a Grey's Anatomy so I know way more than you or any doctor does.

Damn you and your so called 'books' and yer litterehsay.

Gibbsey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Each pill costs twenty cents to manufacture...except the first one. The first one cost 30 million (at least). Bringing a new medication from research through trials and testing to the market costs a boatload of cash.

Sorry Ahtman im going to have to disagree with you... it'll cost alot lot more than 30 million

I can't list the R&D cost of every single drug out there you know. I was just using the .20 to 30,000,000.00 as an general example. I debated on 30 mill or 300 mill but in the end I flipped a coin.

kronk wrote:Do they make a pill that will stop ke$ha from making more songs?

It's called a cyanide pill.

Peter Wiggin wrote:The cost of production is not proportional to the cost of said drugs under the current healthcare system. I'd link statistical data, but its so glaringly obvious to anyone that's had any contact with medical care that I shouldn't have to.

How's that confirmation bias working out for you?

halonachos wrote:Major be Biochemistry, what you got for that homie?

A tuition bill the likes of which could knock down a skyscraper.

halonachos wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:Major be Biochemistry, what you got for that homie?

A tuition bill the likes of which could knock down a skyscraper.

Yep, but totally worth it.

Also, confirmation bias, just had my cognitive thinking final today. Funny in my own mind.

I think I'm picking up some residual signals here as well.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Personally I'm addicted to the intricacies of the human mind though...

Well that explains the Volvo corporate training.

Of course putting a bullet there in the first place is also an immediate effect and much more gratifying. MWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A buddy took his soon to a doctor when his son fell and bit the end of his tongue off. The doctor looked at it for 5 minutes, told them it wasn't enough to worry about, gave him a lollipop and charged them $260 for the trouble...and that was the price with health insurance.

Elmodiddly wrote:What people don't realise is the whole system is being paid for, not just the 30 seconds to see the doctor.

Well dur, but $260 for 5 minutes of nothing is still ridiculous, and remember that was the price with insurance.

legoburner wrote:

halonachos wrote:As to having to pay the NHS and a private person for seeing the private person, yes there is a flaw there.

It would be like having to pay the USPS(United States Postal Service) whenever we use FedEx or UPS.

Just wanted to point out here though that the quality of care with private in the UK is equal to the best of the US

But...but we're No. 1.