SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Thursday October 15 2015, @01:03PM
from the money-makes-the-world-go-round dept.
from the money-makes-the-world-go-round dept.
U.S. prices for the world's 20 top-selling medicines are, on average, three times higher than in Britain, according to an analysis carried out for Reuters.
The finding underscores a transatlantic gulf between the price of treatments for a range of diseases and follows demands for lower drug costs in America from industry critics such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The 20 medicines, which together accounted for 15 percent of global pharmaceuticals spending in 2014, are a major source of profits for companies including AbbVie (ABBV.N), AstraZeneca (AZN.L), Merck (MRK.N), Pfizer (PFE.N) and Roche (ROG.VX).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Transatlantic Divide: How U.S. Pays Three Times More for Drugs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 42 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Q: Why does Washington have the most lawyers per capita and
New Jersey the most toxic waste dumps?
A: God gave New Jersey first choice.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday October 15 2015, @03:07PM
basically, the US (people, not gov!) funds the drug companies' ADVERTISING BUDGETS.
how does that feel? we pay thru the nose and the effect is that we get to see tv commercials, print ads and all that other USELESS CRAP. but think of the tv/print folks who get to reap all that drug-advertisement money! they do deserve that income, its well earned of course (rolls eyes).
if you take the ad budget away entirely and applied it as a discount to american consumers, I bet we'd get drugs for a fraction of their 'sale price', as stated in the US.
somethings really should not be for profit. do you want fire stations to be for-profit? we already have cops that work for-profit (civil asset forfeiture and other methods where the pigs get to steal your goods and keep it). do you really think drug companies should exist in a for-profit world? and before you say so, are you 100% certain that the scientists and researchers (the real heros of the companies) would not work there unless they all made 6 figure incomes? do you think the industry would just disappear if they were told they had to break even and not make a profit? cover salaries, of course, but not make the insane profits they do now?
some people do want to work for good reasons and not to rape fellow mankind while he's down. we'd have the same number of scientists working these issues, but the diff would be that the psycho CEO's and business asswipes would not pollute this field and they'd find some other area to fuck up, leaving this one alone to serve man as it should be.
congress could 're-wire' the whole healthcare system to be non-profit and as a service, just like infrastructure is a service that we all demand (in a modern first world country). its a damned shame that they are all bought and sold and the changes won't ever be huge in the industry.
but think about how it could have been if we didn't have such powerful people trying to corrupt what should be a thing that benefits people. the real crime is the governments allowing that to happen.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @08:02PM
Sounds like a bunch of commie bullshit from a Christian-hating pinko hippie. Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @09:56PM
The money is spent on marketing, not just advertising. Marketing also including educating doctors, and 'gifts' to doctors, and maybe bribes to insurance, and government officials.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday October 15 2015, @10:35PM
This is how a great many things are thus enhanced to improve their value to others, but not necessarily for the original target market.
This is the same as what happened to cable tv, the internet, medical insurance, the political system in the US... None of them are what they used to be, and I think we can probably agree that in my few examples, none of them are what we'd like them to be. Despite everything that has happened to improve them over time, there always has been something to diminish those advances.
I'd rather live today than 100 years ago (if I take off my rose tinted steam punk goggles for a moment) due to the benefits I receive from the advances we've had. And yet it could be so much better if shareholder value and executive board enrichment were less of a concern.