Now, this is a bit ironic...

[j2k4]

I thought this was interesting; got it from a fellow I don't hear from too often, as he doesn't normally share my view on anything.

For tha record, he is not American, nor is he from the U.K.

There are over six billion people living on our planet. Of that six
billion, almost two billion are Muslims. That's roughly a third of the
total population of the earth.

The earthquake that triggered the killer tsunami was centered just off the
coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Indonesia is the world's most
populous Muslim country. It was also the most severely devastated by the
wave. Nearly 100,000 of the victims of the December 26 catastrophe were
Indonesian Muslims.

The vast majority of the victims were either Muslims, Buddhists or Hindu.
Got all that? Good.

Now, to the United Nations. The United Nations consists of 186 countries.
The most powerful voting bloc is the fifty-seven Islamic countries that
generally vote with one voice, especially when the United States or Israel
are voting the other way.

The United Nations' head of humanitarian relief, Jan Egeland, criticized
the West for being stingy. He didn't specifically mention America, but he
cited the exact percentage of the US GDP that is budgeted for foreign aid,
so there is little doubt of who the 'stingy West' was, at least in
Egeland's mind.

Egeland slammed the United States for not raising taxes so that America
could give a greater percentage of its GDP to the UN to distribute as part
of the UN's foreign aid package.

Editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times and other liberal
newspapers echoed Egeland's charge, with the New York Times calling
America's $350 million in direct government aid 'miserly'.

The United States makes up some six percent of the world's total
population, but we pay a quarter of the United Nation's total budget. The
United States pays forty percent of the world's total disaster relief aid,
and sixty percent of the world's total food donations.

The $2.4 billion (that's BILLION) dollars Washington spent in emergency
aid in 2003 represented 40 percent of the total amount of emergency
assistance from all bilateral donors provided that year. Evidently, that
isn't enough.

It didn't take long for these same liberal elitists to turn Mother Nature
into an American right-wing hater of Islam.

Not only had America's imperialistic self-enrichment policies created the
natural disaster, but also cold-hearted Muslim hating President Bush
wouldn't leave his ranch in Texas... which by the way, is his home -- not
a vacation destination -- and only offered a 'stingy' initial monetary
donation.

While these elitist journalist were assailing President Bush and
expounding the mantra that America should be giving more money to the
devastated region in a token gesture that would 'show Islam that America
didn't hate Muslims', UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was still on his
vacation skiing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. He returned to New York four
days later.

The wave struck on Sunday, and it took only until Monday before the US
announced its $350 million in initial aid, sent the USS Abraham Lincoln
into the region, including helicopters, and C-130 transport planes, sent
hundreds of tons of pre-packaged emergency aid supplies, and deployed some
14,000 American troops to help with the recovery and cleanup.

In Indonesia, U.S. helicopters flew at least 30 sorties, delivering 60,000
pounds of water and supplies, from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham
Lincoln along a 120-mile stretch of Sumatra island's ravaged coastline.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the richest nations in the Islamic world, donated
a paltry $10 million each. The United Arab Emirates donated some $20
million to relieve the suffering of their Islamic 'brothers'.

Egypt's contribution at the time of this writing is $104,000.00. (Note:
Egypt gets

$2 BILLION in US foreign aid annually)

And did anybody notice that the majority of the private donations came
from those evil corporate types the left so loves to loathe?

Pfizer donated $10 million in cash and $25 million in drugs. (That is more
than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined). General Motors pledged $2
million in cash, agreed to match employee donations dollar for dollar, and
is sending vehicles to transport food and medical supplies to the region.

Other corporate donors include Nike Inc., American Express, General
Electric, First Data Corp., Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Exxon-Mobil, Citigroup,
Marriott International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

On the other hand, where are all the Hollywood liberals? Activist actors
such as Ben Affleck, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Tim Robbins, Martin
Sheen, and Barbra Streisand have not been heard from.

And where is George Soros, the world richest left wing liberal?

Actress Sandra Bullock donated one million dollars, but Bullock is neither
an activist nor a liberal. (She also donated one million following
September 11.) Super-rich liberals like Bono and Bruce Springsteen are
promising to hold another 'aid concert' to collect money (not theirs) for
the victims.

America, as noted at the outset, represents six percent of the global
population. But in any catastrophe, it gets one hundred percent of the
blame. The UN's nose is out of joint because the Bush administration
refuses to funnel its aid through the UN's various aid agencies.

Kofi Annan wants to use the catastrophe to shore up the UN's sagging image
in the wake of the Oil-For-Food thefts from Iraq. The United States wants
to ensure the aid doesn't end up lining the pockets of UN officials. So
the US is 'too stingy' and gets another black eye.

Where is the rest of the Islamic world? There are fifty-seven Islamic
nations, and the world's biggest Islamic nation is the one that took the
hardest hit. But it is the United States -- the world's largest donor
nation -- that is grabbing all the headlines for being 'stingy'.

To put things in perspective, I saw a news photo yesterday of one of the
Indonesian victims.

He was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the face of Osama bin Laden.

Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume:7, Issue:4

[hobbes]

J2,

Illegal nuclear experiments for the purpose of supporting Israel were the cause of the tsunami.

We killed everyone and we should rebuild everything. It just makes sense.

:frusty: :frusty: :frusty:

[Rat Faced]

How much aid does the United States give?

Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush’s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.



How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?

The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 16.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.



Lets look at that in perspective though huh?

Actually, lets look at it per head of population even...

USA has 6x the population of the UK, therefore to hit the same level per head as the UK you should have contributed $28+Billion (nearly 3x as much as the $10 Billion contributed).. more, if you take the size of the relative economies into account :P :rolleyes:

And, I doubt very much that the UK is anywhere near the top of the league with either method of measuring aid ;)

[ahctlucabbuS]

Editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times and other liberal
newspapers echoed Egeland's charge, with the New York Times calling
America's $350 million in direct government aid 'miserly'.

It's good to know the sensible suggestion had its effect then.

[Everose]

But we Americans feel okay about all of this because... ... ... we are the recipients of much UN/world aid/fundraising when we have such disasters as three hurricanes hitting our State of Florida in a row.

And who minds paying (or not being able to pay) $3.00 a pill to Pfizer for a three-a-day life saving prescription when our money is going to help others who must need that help more than ourselves?

And who cares that when this is figured per capita, it doesn't really reflect the total population correctly because the per capita figures include a large amount of people who are so elderly and/or poor they cannot put food on their table or a roof over their own heads let alone pay taxes...

:frusty:

[Rat Faced]

Everose..

You think we're all young and earn enough to pay taxes? :blink:

As to the Drugs thing... well you're government pays a LOT more per head for healthcare (twice the UK does in terms of GDP, I make that about 6x at least in terms $$ per head) and YOU STILL PAY FOR IT PRIVATELY TOO...

If you keep electing politicians that wont fight the Drugs Companies and Insurance Companies though...



In the UK, we'd say someone (about 300,000,000 of them in fact) was getting ripped off big time
:whistling

[Biggles]

There are a couple of fair points in the piece but much of it is factually wrong.

Egeland made his comments when the US donation was $30m not when it was $350. To be fair to Egeland he had people on the ground and knew how bad things were I think he was really worried at that point that it was going to be overlooked. He did express both his joy and gratitude at the eventual response - but I don't know when this was written and such comments would not sit well in it anyway if it were available at time of writing.

The 40% figure for donations includes monies for Israel and Iraq. Now to be fair, this is tax payers money being given away so it does count but some would argue that it does not deliver quite as much as other aspects of US and World aid. Notwithstanding the 40% figure for 2003 (given the cost of Iraq, 2004 may well be higher) Up until this point the US figure was around 20% or pretty much directly in line with the US share of global GDP. This would suggest to me that the US is neither stingy or generous.

Source OECD

The piece ignores the fact that global donations for the disaster are currently well over $2b. Also, the ME countries raised a lot more than what is being shown here. I understand a TV telethon in Saudi alone raised $57m.

Nevertheless, as I said above, the US does pull its weight and as it is a big lad that is important. It is disappointing that politics are played around such a desperate situation. I have seen a little regarding some of the fuss over this but by and large in Europe the focus was on raising as much as possible and helping the victims. In particular a lot of Europeans came back and spoke up on the behalf of the Thais and Sri Lankans saying that the locals were fantastic and shared everything they had with the tourists. This warmed sentiment towards them enormously which may in part explain the very large amounts of money from Europe; both from public and private purses.

Yet despite these picky points the piece does highlight an ongoing problem - there are those in the US that feel they are constantly on the defensive whether it be foreign policy or charitible aid. This is unfortunate and in my view needs to be addressed not just abroad but at home. There are those that spread the Great Satan myth (OBL in particular) but equally there are those domestically that use the same propaganda to spread dismay and distrust at home. Neither are healthy.

Hobbes, I though it was caused by a discarded burger from a US cruise ship - you know how you guys like to go supersize.

[RPerry]

I swear I just posted something here that is no longer there..... but lets try it a second time..

Paul, those figures you posted are a budget, right ? what about money contributed outside the budget such as from private individuals ?
And as I put in my missing post, and as everose stated, we had 4 major hurricanes hit my home state of Florida this past hurricane season (not 3) and hundreds of homes are still not rebuilt. I saw some of this firsthand today, as Dawn and I drove out to Bok Tower gardens, in Lake Wales. Lake Wales seemed to have gotten crossed by 3 of the hurricanes that hit. Where is the aid for those people ? I have had no problem in the past with giving money, I always leave a very large tip when I go out to dinner, usually 50% of the bill. I do however grow sick and tired of the nit-picking.
my conclusion, what I give is my business, and I could care less for whatever the rest of the world thinks of it :dry:

[Rat Faced]

Paul, Is that a budget you have figured there ? how about private donations, and money contributed outside the budget ?

and by the way... incase people have forgotten, we had several hurricanes hit here during the season, its fresh in my mind, cause dawn and I just drove out to Bok Tower gardens in Lake Wales Florida, and there are still hundreds of homes that have not been repaired... I wonder how may foreign countries helped out those people ? :dry:


Actually Rob, it was just using the figures shown in the post, which were taken from the Council of Foreign Relations (http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html) site :P

How do you tell what has been included and excluded from official figures? (which is why i used someone elses :P)

Ask Biggles ;)


As to your hurricanes... well, there was also a Hurricane @ Brazil last year (1st one on record) and the number of Tornado's almost doubled in the USA..

These were predicted as a consequence of Global Warming years ago (but ask Bush, Global Warming isnt happening)...

The Aid was there if asked for... however the wealthy countries never ask for it (as should be the case)

[Rat Faced]

You did post it Rob... as an edit to my post earlier, instead of a reply :P

just cant get the staff :rolleyes:

[Biggles]

I swear I just posted something here that is no longer there..... but lets try it a second time..

Paul, those figures you posted are a budget, right ? what about money contributed outside the budget such as from private individuals ?
And as I put in my missing post, and as everose stated, we had 4 major hurricanes hit my home state of Florida this past hurricane season (not 3) and hundreds of homes are still not rebuilt. I saw some of this firsthand today, as Dawn and I drove out to Bok Tower gardens, in Lake Wales. Lake Wales seemed to have gotten crossed by 3 of the hurricanes that hit. Where is the aid for those people ? I have had no problem in the past with giving money, I always leave a very large tip when I go out to dinner, usually 50% of the bill. I do however grow sick and tired of the nit-picking.
my conclusion, what I give is my business, and I could care less for whatever the rest of the world thinks of it :dry:


I think this is the point I was making. The nit-picking is coming from where? Certainly not the poor people on the ground. If you were in Sri Lanka or Thailand (perhaps not Aceh as it is a war zone) you would find grateful people who really appreciate the help they are getting. The nit-picking is largely the domain of TV news and chat stations. As I said above, Egeland spoke when it looked like there was a problem not after all the giving. Some might argue that Egeland did a good thing.

I am surprised regarding Florida. From TV interviews, people like Jeb bush gave the impression things were under control. There certainly has never been any suggestion that help was required. If the US asked it might be pleasantly surprised.

[RPerry]

You did post it Rob... as an edit to my post earlier, instead of a reply :P

just cant get the staff :rolleyes:


doesn't it suck when you click edit instead of post :blushing:

I re-edied your post pal, and I'm going to get dawn to make me another drink, last one made me do weired things :1eye:

[Rat Faced]

If i was over there, i'd be happy for food/water..

I wouldnt give a crap where it was from, just thankful for whoever sent it (and its more likely to come from a private individual via a charity than any Government) :(

[RPerry]

I think this is the point I was making. The nit-picking is coming from where? Certainly not the poor people on the ground. If you were in Sri Lanka or Thailand (perhaps not Aceh as it is a war zone) you would find grateful people who really appreciate the help they are getting. The nit-picking is largely the domain of TV news and chat stations. As I said above, Egeland spoke when it looked like there was a problem not after all the giving. Some might argue that Egeland did a good thing.

I am surprised regarding Florida. From TV interviews, people like Jeb bush gave the impression things were under control. There certainly has never been any suggestion that help was required. If the US asked it might be pleasantly surprised.

I was surprised myself, although I'm sure the only reason my repairs are done is because I fixed it myself. There are homes around me that are still tarped, and homes right around my old home which is 2 miles away that are still unlivable, including the house of my really good friends whom I used to live right across the street. they must have just managed to get their roof done this week, but the inside is totally destroyed from the water. suposedly, the help shou8ld be there, but I have heard nothing but horror stories from those who requested it.

[RPerry]

If i was over there, i'd be happy for food/water..

I wouldnt give a crap where it was from, just thankful for whoever sent it (and its more likely to come from a private individual via a charity than any Government) :(


this is my feelings exactly ( thanks paul)
when something of this magnitude happens, to hell with the politics.... It sucks our countires try to make themselves look better ( or worse) by publishing contributions.

[Everose]

Everose..

You think we're all young and earn enough to pay taxes? :blink:

No, and my intent was not to in any way infer any other country was being 'stingy.' I just did not want anyone to think in terms of everyone in the United States being even in a financial position to pay taxes. :)

As to the Drugs thing... well you're government pays a LOT more per head for healthcare (twice the UK does in terms of GDP, I make that about 6x at least in terms $$ per head) and YOU STILL PAY FOR IT PRIVATELY TOO...

I am aware of this. We accept a lot of people from other countries, illegally or not, and pay their medical bills, too, when they cannot afford it. While I am not one that would want anyone to not get medical help if they need it, illegal or not, you surely realize our compassion plays into our total dollars spent on health care?

If you keep electing politicians that wont fight the Drugs Companies and Insurance Companies though...

No need to go there for my benefit. It is a major thorn for me. :lol:



In the UK, we'd say someone (about 300,000,000 of them in fact) was getting ripped off big time

I think if you reread my post, you have stated my sentiments exactly. :D



Could it be that President Bush is realizing a lot of us have this strong feeling about being ripped off and that might just be his hesitancy at giving more of our taxes for relief abroad? No, probably not. Why would our president be aware of our feelings. Silly me. :lol:

[j2k4]

I think this is the point I was making. The nit-picking is coming from where? Certainly not the poor people on the ground. If you were in Sri Lanka or Thailand (perhaps not Aceh as it is a war zone) you would find grateful people who really appreciate the help they are getting. The nit-picking is largely the domain of TV news and chat stations. As I said above, Egeland spoke when it looked like there was a problem not after all the giving. Some might argue that Egeland did a good thing.

I am surprised regarding Florida. From TV interviews, people like Jeb bush gave the impression things were under control. There certainly has never been any suggestion that help was required. If the US asked it might be pleasantly surprised.

I agree that the the accusations of niggardliness are largely the milieu of the world media (whose job it is to point out many things that are not there), and many (most?) observers have properly concluded the quibbling is just that and nothing more, but the bottom line is the perception/attitude of the opinion-makers; the why of it all.

As to your last:

1. "Hyper-Powers" don't ask for help.

2. If help were genuinely needed, the "asking" should be unnecessary, the media being as efficient as it is.

I believe you when you say we might just be surprised.

Please believe me when I say that you would also be surprised.

[vidcc]

1. "Hyper-Powers" don't ask for help.

2. If help were genuinely needed, the "asking" should be unnecessary, the media being as efficient as it is.

.

i do believe that the offer is always there, the acceptance may not be though. You must agree that some do make a point of raising the "where was the world when the hurricane hit florida" probably don't appreciate that.

@ perry.

Are any of the problems due to lack of insurance or lack of manpower skilled for the task required?

[Everose]

[QUOTE=vidcc]i do believe that the offer is always there, the acceptance may not be though. You must agree that some do make a point of raising the "where was the world when the hurricane hit florida" probably don't appreciate that.


This person that used the 'where was the world when the hurricane hit Florida' does indeed, appreciate that. Very much so. :)
And I also feel that phrase is used most often when we Americans are being attacked for having such a high deficit, while on the other hand being called stingy when we are trying to do something about that; or like circumstances. ;)

In the future I will use the blizzards, mudslides, etc. to make my point. :lol:

[Maxtor2]

First, this drug thing. Any pill you buy probably cost around 25 cents (US) to make. Many of these pills are sold for upwards of two dollars (US), for good reason. The real price of medicine is not manufacturing a pill, but rather developing it. Everose, that $3 pill cost about $500 million to develop, if not more. And, the cost is not just of that single pill: Pfizer made more than 5,000 compounds in 2002 alone, and only half a dozen of those compounds reached clinical trials. It is unlikely that any of those compounds will pass clinical trials and be approved by the FDA.
So, when you buy a pill, the great majority of the money you spend covers the debt that the drug company racked up over the 15 years (or more, but 15 is about average for Pfizer-type drugs) that separate identifying the harmful bacteria and the release of the drug.
You may notice that almost all drug research and development companies are in the US. This is because Canada, Britain, and the like will tell a drug company that they will pay 50 cents for a pill that costs 25 cents to manufacture. This more than covers the additional cost of transportation, but it does almost nothing to pay for research and development of that pill, much less of the medicines that the company is currently developing. The companies figure that it's better to make a bit of money, rather than none at all, and try to prevent counterfeit drugs that are made in China from finding a market (those counterfeits are no different than the name brand, but the counterfeiting company avoids all the research expenses).

Thus, the US citizen pays virtually all of the costs for medical research, and other countries are able to get those drugs at a severely lower cost.
If those research debts are not paid off, the drug company may go bankrupt and shut down, even though it is making profits from drug sales. In other words, there will be no more drugs, except counterfeits (which there aren't enough of if the real companies close), and no new medicines will be developed. That's why both the US and Canada strongly oppose the scheme of reimporting American-made drugs from Canada.
Rat Faced, it's not the drug companies that are getting rich and screwing their customers, it's the politicians who are screwing drug companies and American consumers. If your medical system wasn’t government-run, you would actually pay the real price for medicines, and Americans would pay far less.


Add a few billion to US international aid, on behalf of its citizens whom pay for the medicines that the world uses.

Now, the aid stuff. American donations to tsunami victims, both government and private (that includes corporate) topped 1 billion a while ago. That's actual aid, not pledges; pledges are quite worthless. Additionally, European donations often have certain restrictions that the money can only be used to buy products made in the nation that donated the money. Thus, many of those donations are little more than subsidized exports. Cut Europe's aid money in half, as the European governments will have half of that "aid money" in a year. European governments will probably get more than half of the money back, but I'm feeling generous today.

In response to the claim that the UN is actually doing something: wrong. The UN is holding conferences, meetings, councils, debates, discussions, and everything else that involves only talking. The only places that aren't crowded with UN bureaucrats are the areas actually effected by the tsunami. When the UN set up its "headquarters" in Indonesia, that headquarters was in a 5-star hotel, which the UN workers have rooms. What do you think was the first thing that the UN did? I'll give you a hint; it wasn't distribute food, water, medicine, or comfort. The priority was to arrange for 24-hour room service. This was before the UN had a fax machine, an inernet connection, or a telephone system worked out.

I'll grab a quote from the UN website (from about January 1st):
------------------------------------------
Mr. Egeland: Our main problems now are in northern Sumatra and Aceh. <...> In Aceh, today 50 trucks of relief supplies are arriving. <...> Tomorrow, we will have eight full airplanes arriving. I discussed today with Washington whether we can draw on some assets on their side, after consultations with the Indonesian Government, to set up what we call an “air-freight handling centre” in Aceh.

Tomorrow, we will have to set up a camp for relief workers – 90 of them – which is fully self-contained, with kitchen, food, lodging, everything, because they have nowhere to stay and we don't want them to be an additional burden on the people there.
------------------------------------------
One problem: the entire statement is a lie. The UN didn't have a single person in Aceh, and the camp there was set up and run by USAID, the US international aid service (as the name implies). Even a week after this quote, only the US and Australia were using airplanes to deliver relief supplies, and I don't think the UN has used an airplane to transport relief supplies yet (the UN bureaucrats arrive on 1st class seats, though). Additionally, US and Australian relief workers were sleeping on the ground and eating food that didn't need to be cooked. You don't need a luxury resort made out of tents to deliver relief supplies.
The UN's first priority was to set up a camp for relief workers. US and Australia decided that they should deliver aid to those on the verge of starving to death before anything else.

By the way, you do not want to sleep out in the open in Indonesia. That place can get really nasty, even without a tsunami.

But, the UN has delivered some supplies. Let me illustrate an example: about two weeks after the tsunami (more than long enough for people to die of hunger or thirst), the UN finally got a few flights of relief supplies, and I think they were delivered by US planes. The UN promised not to squander any of the aid, even though 65% of donations to the UN are diverted to cover "administration costs", compared to less than 2% for the Red Cross. A picture in the Post, or some similar newspaper, showed UN workers standing next to a pile of boxed food about 6 feet tall. The day before, the pile was 12 feet tall. The UN workers left the boxes out in the rain, because god forbid UN employees work overtime or in such horrid conditions as rain, and more than half of the boxes rotted. Thus, those supplies had to be thrown away.

That's about as efficient as the UN can get.

By the way, http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ provides some great information about the UN.

[Busyman]

my conclusion, what I give is my business, and I could care less for whatever the rest of the world thinks of it
this is my feelings exactly ( thanks paul)
when something of this magnitude happens, to hell with the politics.... It sucks our countires try to make themselves look better ( or worse) by publishing contributions.
AGREED!!!! ;)

[vidcc]

@maxtor2

Partly because of extraordinarily generous tax breaks but mostly because of high prices guaranteed by Congress, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, year in and year out, ranks as the country's richest. Pfizer, which for 2002 reported profits of $9.1 billion on revenue of $32.4 billion, earned a return on revenue of 28%, a rate more than twice that of General Electric, nine times that of Wal-Mart and 31 times that of General Motors.
To be sure, the pharmaceutical industry insists it needs the higher prices to pay its hefty research and development tab. (The industry spends tens of millions on marketing and advertising as well but does not make an issue of that.) An academic study in 2001, partly funded by the drug industry, estimated that it costs an average of $802 million to bring a single new drug to market, though that number is disputed by consumer advocates.
Says Alan F. Holmer, president of PhRMA: "Developing new medicines requires cutting-edge science, enormous investment of time and money, and willingness to commit those resources in the face of expensive failure after failure. None of this is compatible with price controls."
But no one really knows how the money is spent. Indeed, the industry has refused to open its books to government auditors and once waged a nine-year legal battle with the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress's investigative arm, to keep the information secret. Congress could subpoena the information but has refused to do so, in no small part because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry lobby.
While the industry is quick to claim how much it must spend to come up with new drugs, it is slow to acknowledge the contributions of the Federal Government and American taxpayers.
Universities, foundations, researchers and congressional committees have concluded for years that many major drugs owe their origins to research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute and other public agencies.
A report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 2000, then headed by Republican Senator Connie Mack of Florida, summed it up: "The Federal Government, mainly through the NIH, funds about 36% of all U.S. medical research ... Of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992, 15 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research."
A GAO report last year on Taxol, which had worldwide sales of $6.2 billion from 1998 to 2002, noted, "Through a collaboration with NIH, [Bristol-Myers Squibb] benefitted from substantial investments in research conducted or funded by NIH." The collaboration "provided the company with research results that enabled [Taxol] to be quickly commercialized ..."

[Everose]

First, this drug thing. Any pill you buy probably cost around 25 cents (US) to make. Many of these pills are sold for upwards of two dollars (US), for good reason. The real price of medicine is not manufacturing a pill, but rather developing it. Everose, that $3 pill cost about $500 million to develop, if not more. And, the cost is not just of that single pill: Pfizer made more than 5,000 compounds in 2002 alone, and only half a dozen of those compounds reached clinical trials. It is unlikely that any of those compounds will pass clinical trials and be approved by the FDA.
So, when you buy a pill, the great majority of the money you spend covers the debt that the drug company racked up over the 15 years (or more, but 15 is about average for Pfizer-type drugs) that separate identifying the harmful bacteria and the release of the drug.
You may notice that almost all drug research and development companies are in the US. This is because Canada, Britain, and the like will tell a drug company that they will pay 50 cents for a pill that costs 25 cents to manufacture. This more than covers the additional cost of transportation, but it does almost nothing to pay for research and development of that pill, much less of the medicines that the company is currently developing. The companies figure that it's better to make a bit of money, rather than none at all, and try to prevent counterfeit drugs that are made in China from finding a market (those counterfeits are no different than the name brand, but the counterfeiting company avoids all the research expenses).

Thus, the US citizen pays virtually all of the costs for medical research, and other countries are able to get those drugs at a severely lower cost.
If those research debts are not paid off, the drug company may go bankrupt and shut down, even though it is making profits from drug sales. In other words, there will be no more drugs, except counterfeits (which there aren't enough of if the real companies close), and no new medicines will be developed. That's why both the US and Canada strongly oppose the scheme of reimporting American-made drugs from Canada.
Rat Faced, it's not the drug companies that are getting rich and screwing their customers, it's the politicians who are screwing drug companies and American consumers. If your medical system wasn’t government-run, you would actually pay the real price for medicines, and Americans would pay far less.


Add a few billion to US international aid, on behalf of its citizens whom pay for the medicines that the world uses.

Now, the aid stuff. American donations to tsunami victims, both government and private (that includes corporate) topped 1 billion a while ago. That's actual aid, not pledges; pledges are quite worthless. Additionally, European donations often have certain restrictions that the money can only be used to buy products made in the nation that donated the money. Thus, many of those donations are little more than subsidized exports. Cut Europe's aid money in half, as the European governments will have half of that "aid money" in a year. European governments will probably get more than half of the money back, but I'm feeling generous today.

In response to the claim that the UN is actually doing something: wrong. The UN is holding conferences, meetings, councils, debates, discussions, and everything else that involves only talking. The only places that aren't crowded with UN bureaucrats are the areas actually effected by the tsunami. When the UN set up its "headquarters" in Indonesia, that headquarters was in a 5-star hotel, which the UN workers have rooms. What do you think was the first thing that the UN did? I'll give you a hint; it wasn't distribute food, water, medicine, or comfort. The priority was to arrange for 24-hour room service. This was before the UN had a fax machine, an inernet connection, or a telephone system worked out.

I'll grab a quote from the UN website (from about January 1st):
------------------------------------------
Mr. Egeland: Our main problems now are in northern Sumatra and Aceh. <...> In Aceh, today 50 trucks of relief supplies are arriving. <...> Tomorrow, we will have eight full airplanes arriving. I discussed today with Washington whether we can draw on some assets on their side, after consultations with the Indonesian Government, to set up what we call an “air-freight handling centre” in Aceh.

Tomorrow, we will have to set up a camp for relief workers – 90 of them – which is fully self-contained, with kitchen, food, lodging, everything, because they have nowhere to stay and we don't want them to be an additional burden on the people there.
------------------------------------------
One problem: the entire statement is a lie. The UN didn't have a single person in Aceh, and the camp there was set up and run by USAID, the US international aid service (as the name implies). Even a week after this quote, only the US and Australia were using airplanes to deliver relief supplies, and I don't think the UN has used an airplane to transport relief supplies yet (the UN bureaucrats arrive on 1st class seats, though). Additionally, US and Australian relief workers were sleeping on the ground and eating food that didn't need to be cooked. You don't need a luxury resort made out of tents to deliver relief supplies.
The UN's first priority was to set up a camp for relief workers. US and Australia decided that they should deliver aid to those on the verge of starving to death before anything else.

By the way, you do not want to sleep out in the open in Indonesia. That place can get really nasty, even without a tsunami.

But, the UN has delivered some supplies. Let me illustrate an example: about two weeks after the tsunami (more than long enough for people to die of hunger or thirst), the UN finally got a few flights of relief supplies, and I think they were delivered by US planes. The UN promised not to squander any of the aid, even though 65% of donations to the UN are diverted to cover "administration costs", compared to less than 2% for the Red Cross. A picture in the Post, or some similar newspaper, showed UN workers standing next to a pile of boxed food about 6 feet tall. The day before, the pile was 12 feet tall. The UN workers left the boxes out in the rain, because god forbid UN employees work overtime or in such horrid conditions as rain, and more than half of the boxes rotted. Thus, those supplies had to be thrown away.

That's about as efficient as the UN can get.

By the way, http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ provides some great information about the UN.


Dad.... is that you? How did you find this board? :blushing:

On a serious note, Maxtor2, please post here more.

I do understand that in order to continue developing drugs the drug companies must have a return on their research and development. And I think you understand the frustration of the American Citizen who has to pay these prices... ... ...thank you for taking the time to explain a few things I was unaware of. I was not aware we Americans are, in effect, subsidizing the world with the price we pay for our drugs.

What do you see as the answer here, Maxtor2, to even things up a bit?

Do the American Drug Companies have any programs here in the United States to see that people that really need drugs but cannot afford to get them .. get them? I am aware they give the Dr's a lot of samples, and they in turn give them to their patients free of charge. I have assumed this was done purely in the drug companies own interests, such as generating scripts of their drug being written. I have to hope those samples go first to people in dire financial need, but have no way of knowing that.

Thank you for what you have written here about the UN's participation and priorities in giving tsunami aid. It was an eye opener. Thanks also for the link. I plan on using it.

Everose

[j2k4]

Maxtor2 stands to be accused of working for one of the drug companies, or, at the very least, being a conservative by virtue of his use of logic.

I hereby reiterate my offer to him/her a spot on my team, unless he/she commits to a leading role here, in which case I would be willing to sit humbly on his/her bench. :D

[vidcc]

Maxtor2 stands to be accused of working for one of the drug companies, or, at the very least, being a conservative by virtue of his use of logic.

I hereby reiterate my offer to him/her a spot on my team, unless he/she commits to a leading role here, in which case I would be willing to sit humbly on his/her bench. :D
I hope you are not suggesting i am accusing him of anything.

Yes drug companies need to research, they are however profiteering IMO and the use of the "American market" as an excuse for cost to bolster the drug research for the rest of the world is quite frankly IMO thin.

[cpt_azad]

Listen and listen closely. The "muslim" world (the countries, not the actual citizens/ppl) don't give a rat's ass about their "brothers" and "sisters" half way across the world or for that matter right in their own home. As long as they can profit somehow and keep their rich royal families going they're happy. Do you really think Israel would still be there if Saudia Arabia (or any other Muslim country for that matter) decided to help their "Brothers"? Same with what's going on with the tsunami relief effort. It's really disgraceful and sickening. And don't bring up the Yom Kippur War, it was Israel that launched a surprise attack not the other way around (Israel decided to bomb some airfields, and what the hell were Egypt and Syria to do? Sit back and take it with a smile?).

[Skiz]

Nice post j2k4 ;)

[Rat Faced]

Maxtor,

How come the European companies make a profit then?

You quote the figures, but neglect to say where the money for research comes from..

The vast majority of that money comes from the Governemnt either directly (via Research Grants or the Governments own Research passed on to the companies, or jointly funded ventures) or indirectly (through University Research).

The fact that the Drugs are a lot cheaper here, and yet the Drugs Companies and Pharmacies both appear to make a profit (and a large one) says much.

The reason that most companies are in the USA is simple... thats where they can make the most PROFIT.. any companies favourite word.


About the UN in Indonesia...

If it was a 5 Star Hotel, they wouldnt have had to "arrange" 24 hour Room Service, its already there... :P

[hobbes]

As a partial answer, the FDA much more stringent here than in other countries. In fact, many drugs we are using as "new", have been in common use in Europe for years. The reason is that FDA would not approve it for use.

Eventually they say, "Well, it hasn't killed them yet, so I guess you guys can market it, but only by prescription."

So it takes much longer to develop a drug in the US.

In Mexico, you can get human growth hormone which is felt to reverse the effects of aging. Nobody knows if it is safe or not, but money talks South of the Border. If it works out, maybe we will use it here in 15 years.

Distribution is also held in check, even after the FDA approves it. Remember Pepsid? That was the first big breakthrough in peptic ulcer disease since the invention of antiacids. For so many years only a doctor could write you a 'script for it. Finally, it is over-the-counter and cheap as dirt. Just think how much more money they could have made putting it directly on the shelves.

A final thought is that drug companies get 5 or so years of exclusive rights to a new drug. So they need to make up they money while they can. After 5 years, all the generic brands enter the market and prices drop drastically.

Pfizer has done well as it hit a homerun with Viagra a few years back and probably would not be here if the FDA had not approved it. But now with all the competition and blackmarket Viagra, they are starting to slip.

pfizer stock (http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote.html?Ticker=PFE&TimeFrame=AL#PriceGraph)

Drug companies are big risk/big reward ventures. And when you hit it, you have to seize the day before the generic brands hit the market.

A friend of mine has invested in a company that is attempting to make artifical hemoglobin (the stuff in blood that carries oxygen). These people have either spent the last 10 years developing the next revolution, or something that will just not work at all.

[Skiz]

Well worth the read, and sorry to say, absolutely true. All the UN has become is a mechanism to redistribute the world's wealth. Read this as taking from the "have" nations and giving to the "have not" nations. This is sadly the same strategy that keeps the Democrats in power: the "entitlements" programs.

[Biggles]

Maxtor2

Interesting, however, you will not be surprised if I take issue with you on a number of points.

With regards drugs - I cannot talk about the US situation as I know little about it. However, surely a cursory glance at the industry would have highlighted major European companies and European activity in this area. Medical research is big business here too. Likewise, these companies must do battle with Chinese and Indian replicants but that does not stop them doing good business in Europe - despite the nature of European Health Systems.

List of European based companies (http://www.2from.com/pharmlist.htm)

The above lists most companies operating in Europe, including US firms that have decided to have activities here as well as in the US.

With regards the UN, it looks suspiciously like someone has been watching Faux News (I saw that somewhere and it tickled me). There have been no end of interviews on the ground with UN workers on most TV channels - and likewise similar reports in most of the National newspapers. Is it an International conspiracy to suggest the UN is working when it is not?


UNESCO did have people on the ground as did other UN bodies. You will recall it was UN workers that highlighted problems on the ground with child traffiking and it was a UN plane that hit the water buffalo on the runway in Aceh - one of the very first planes to attempt a landing. There were some who laughed at the UN's misfortune. However, it is having one's cake and eating it to say they goofed and to boot they weren't even there.

To read your post Maxtor we would have to deduce that only US aid got through and it was only delivered by US citizens - is this the case?

Bilateral aid has been an ongoing scourge of Government Aid for many years and the US has been one of the prime exponents. I recall attending a conference at Edinburgh University on Overseas Aid (I nearly moved to that Department) and a gentleman from Africa said there was a pecking order - "get Norwegian or Swedish aid if it is available - they will buy you what you need" he said. "Failing that it is bilateral aid where they give you the money to buy what they want to sell you". Both Britain and the USA were main players in this field. Bilateral Aid can of course also fall into the "what you need" category. (Note this does not apply private giving which tends by nature to be unilateral).

The other myth that should also be nailed is that Europe only gives through State Aid. This is of course madness. Most of the World's best known charitible bodies, from the Red Cross, The Salvation Army, Oxfam, Medicin Sans Frontiers and Christian Aid, originated in Europe, still have their HQs here and are still prominent features of European life. In the UK private donations were double that of the Government. If the US total is $1b then that means that the US people gave double that of the Government. This would suggest that my argument that there is little difference between the two areas is sound and that this entire subject is an enormous red herring. Quite who it serves, or to what purpose, (other than a little ritual UN bashing) is not clear.

The US aid was real and important and undoubtedly saved lives - I share Colin Powell's view that hopefully this will build bridges.

Regardless of the politics in UN HQ and the somewhat unreal atmosphere of the General Council, there are thousands of ordinary aid workers in the UN on the ground and dealing with day to day issues of water, food and health all over the World. By all means lampoon those who play politics in New York but why denigrate the work and dedication of those who are simply trying to make a difference? Note also: Blue Beret peacekeepers are totally separate from ordinary day to day UN aid workers. These fall under the remit of the Security Council and are drawn from full time armed forces around the World. They are separate and distinct from UNESCO etc., and the Byzantine politics the Blue Berets have to work under (or in most cases watch) are as a result of the individual countries that form the World body failing to agree on almost anything. It is not the UN that says they can't act it is partisan politics from individual countries that stymies them (Ban the Veto is my banner :) )

Meh - not had a good day - as in Camp Granada kindly disregard this letter.

[Maxtor2]

J2k4, I think we're already on the same team, whether we try to make it sound formal or not. But, I don't have any intention of taking a leading role here, as I have neither the experience nor the time to gain the experience of 3,000+ posts.

Vidcc, drug companies have found that they must have a huge bank account to float on in case their drugs are unexpectedly rejected by the FDA, or they must have trusting and generous venture capitalists. Let's get a more complete set of data on Pfizer (I can't find any more statistics from 2002, unfortunately). Yahoo (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=PFE) does well. In short, for 2004: 17.61% profit margin, $51.57 billion in revenue, and $18.81 billion in debt. Profit margins can vary quite widely, especially since Pfizer doesn't have a wide variety of products to sell. If these numbers continue, it will take every cent of profit for the next 2 years, 2 months, and a week or so for Pfizer to cover its debts. Henry A. McKinnell, CEO of Pfizer, makes $9.5 million per year (http://www.forbes.com/static/execpay2004/LIREYQ9.html?passListId=12&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=EYQ9&datatype=Person). The average CEO salary for his industry is just over $3 million per year. For the work required to lead a company the size of Pfizer, that salary isn't very extravagant. The president of Comair, a real asshole who is almost singly responsible for destroying the airline, got tens of millions per year, and a $20 million severance package, when Comair finally released that they either had to fire him or declare bankruptcy due to the incredible cost of their pilot's strike.
Did you know that aspirin can help prevent heart attacks? Well, many in the medical industry know that, but very few outside of the industry are aware of this fact, even though it has been verified many times over more than a decade. The reason you (probably) didn't know this was because the FDA prohibited companies from advertising this effect of aspirin, as it had not been 'proven' to the FDA's standards. The FDA finally approved the advertisement of this after about a decade. However, an 85 cent (or about that) packet explaining this specific trait of aspirin could be purchased at many pharmacies, but few were actually purchased. I'll agree that many of the commercials may be unnecessary, or could more easily be limited to medical magazines, but they do have some purpose. Besides, I don't want Bowflex to find any more space for those horrible, 2-minute-long commercials. I must admit, the really good commercials were by Bridgestone (which is actually Firestone) and Hagan-Das, which turned icecream advertising into a work of art. On the other hand, Viagra and Levitra need to rethink their advertisements. They should try Trojan's methods: hilarious innuendo that implies everything that the commercial wants to say, but without using the specific words that parents hate.

Also, Einstein may have revolutionized science, but he didn't send man to the moon. Neither did Newton, whose unmodified equations were used to plot the course of the Apollo spaceships. Federal research certainly made a few discoveries which later scientists used, but those discoveries were few among many, and did comparatively little to reduce the cost or time needed for research.

I'll have to add a second part to this post later, as it's getting well past my bedtime. Oh yeah, Rosewood, I'm not your dad, and I have yet to hear of an actual case in which someone cannot get the medicine they depend on. Rat Faced, any company can make a good profit with a generic variety of a drug. And that hotel was 5-star by Indonesian standard, which means a bit better than a Mariot resort in Atlanta, Georgia (but the price is of a US 5-star hotel). And, the UN bureaucrats want everything delivered at about the same time they finish ordering. Depending on the bureaucrat, food might be pre-made (and wasted if the bureaucrat changes his plans), and the hotel will keep room service workers on the job for every hour of the day. Mind you, this is before thinking about preparing for the one thing the UN claims to do the most: coordinate the actions of other countries. The US, Australia, and other donators seem to be working nicely with each other, even without the interference of the UN (or, more likely, in spite of the interference of the UN). OK, now it's time to go to sleep; I'll try to post again tomorrow, with some more complete replies.

[vidcc]

Maxtor

All of the points you raised have been already taken into account when I formed my opinion on the way the drug industry works in the USA. I do try to look at both sides before I take a stance. The drug industry is just one element of the whole healthcare issue.

Hobbes.

you raised the FDA points which are another element of the problems we have. One thing I would like to raise is generic products.
After the monopoly period is over and generic brands start to hit the market the price does fall....however the price even for generic brands in the USA is far higher than the price of the "original" in many other countries.

I am not entirely sure that FDA standards are stricter, this may well be the case compared to some countries but not all.... one thing I would suggest is that the FDA perhaps works slower than many of its counterparts.

[Everose]

Oh yeah, Rosewood, I'm not your dad, and I have yet to hear of an actual case in which someone cannot get the medicine they depend on.


Maxtor2, I should have been clearer. To mistake you for my Father, due to the amazing amount of logic I felt was in your post is the highest compliment I could pay you.

I have witnessed very many people being unable to purchase the drugs they depend on due to cost in this country. But it is our social services that, when finally made aware of a situation, step in to help.

[vidcc]

there are many who do not qualify for help

[hobbes]

Maxtor



Hobbes.

you raised the FDA points which are another element of the problems we have. One thing I would like to raise is generic products.
After the monopoly period is over and generic brands start to hit the market the price does fall....however the price even for generic brands in the USA is far higher than the price of the "original" in many other countries.

I am not entirely sure that FDA standards are stricter, this may well be the case compared to some countries but not all.... one thing I would suggest is that the FDA perhaps works slower than many of its counterparts.


Now Vidcc, why would you think the FDA works slower? Isn't that just wild speculation. That's not being very nice.

The FDA has a track record of being extra-strict in drugs hitting the market. I imagine this may be a reflection of all the lawyers who look at any adverse drug reaction as a class action law suit.

As for higher prices, elective drugs like "Viagra" and "Levitra", price will be driven by demand. If people are willing to pay, that is what they will charge.

For necessary medication, this is usually through a 3rd party payer and the person doesn't care what it costs. The burden here falls on those paying out of pocket. But I don't know of any case where a patient was allowed to die because they couldn't pay for insulin. The government lets you exhaust your resources, then steps in and covers the cost.

I think, as Maxtor says, that in other countries with a different approach to healthcare, the government tells a company what it will pay for the drug, whereas here, 3rd party insurers don't have this power.

If a hospital bills $50 dollars for a medication to a private insurer, they will get paid $50. If they bill to medicare/medicaid, they usually pay 65%.

[vidcc]

FDA approved doesn't mean a drug is safe or effective though....does it?

[Biggles]

I am somewhat confused by this talk of 5 star hotels. Who stayed in a 5 star hotel? The UN relief workers who were providing medical aid and food in field hospitals and camps? The UN staff that flew out with Kofi Annan when he toured the region and met with the affected countries leaders? As I recall, Colin Powell also toured the region and met the same people. I would be surprised if he stayed in a 2 star self catering apartment, but I am happy to be corrected.

For the record, I would expect Colin Powell and his staff to stay in a decent hotel when tavelling abroad - making him go in a camper van seems harsh (although very egalitarian :) )

If the argument is that the actual relief workers are not helping those affected by the tsunami but rather are drinking cocktails in Jakarta* I would certainly be interested in the evidence.


*I am not sure there any 5 star International hotels in Aceh.

[hobbes]

FDA approved doesn't mean a drug is safe or effective though....does it?

Specious relevance to the thread. We are talking about factors which may make American drugs more expensive.

Why are the drugs not safe? The FDA shut down the entire production of Urokinase because a couple samples had traces of bacteria.

Why not effective? The drugs do what they say.

Where are you going with this Vidcc? I'm wondering what your point is?



But Dr. Goodman of the F.D.A. defended its policies, saying that they were the "gold standard" for safety worldwide and that if companies could not measure up or chose not to, it might be better for them to pull out.

-from Ruthie's article on vaccine shortage. FDA was causing all kinds of ruckus. They are a pain, but they have really help to set standards that prevent AIDS from getting into our drugs which need cell cultures.

BTW- We now have a SURPLUS of vaccine and people are now bitching about throwing the unused stuff out.

[j2k4]

J2k4, I think we're already on the same team, whether we try to make it sound formal or not. But, I don't have any intention of taking a leading role here, as I have neither the experience nor the time to gain the experience of 3,000+ posts.

;) :)

[vidcc]

It was a question raised by this



The FDA has a track record of being extra-strict in drugs hitting the market. .

to the safety...well look at the recent problem with vioxx as an example.

to the effectiveness it was more the type of drugs being approved

many new drugs are developed to make drug companies and their shareholders more profit, not to offer new treatments and certainly not to offer cures.

only roughly15%-20% (i can't remember the artical i read that but i think it was time magazine) of drugs approved by the FDA in the decade upto 2000 were cited as offering significant clinical advantage over drugs already on the market. a vast majority of research & developement dollars are spent on developing drugs that simply compete with existing drugs already on the market, so drug company A can try to rip sales away from drug company B. What’s more, most drug makers won’t even consider developing drugs for rare diseases because there is little promise of profit.

[hobbes]

Yes, Vioxx is a rare example. You call the FDA too slow, yet you want to get upset when a complication occurs. If we want 100%, don't expect to see any drugs soon.

What you are not taking into account are the drugs that never make it. The problems you never see, because they are caught.

Who gets AIDS from blood products? No one, thanks to the FDA. The FDA sets up a lot of overly-protective measures, that sometimes require factories to be overhauled. As in the vaccine case, the companies just say, "screw it".

What drug companies choose to make is their own business. They apply for FDA approval, the FDA does not tell them what to make.

As for rare diseases, that is what academic centers and government grants are for.

Drug companies are businesses, not charities.

I don't mind people who question their government, or wonder if there is a better way, but your attitude seems to be rather cynical. Your purely speculative postulate about the FDA more reflects your attitude than their incompetence.

You're wandering further and further from the point of the thread. You say the FDA is probably not stricter, they are probably just slow. And their drugs are not safe or effective and I don't like the drugs they are making,.....

Where are you going. Does everything we do in America have to be bad? If I refute every point, will you say you don't like the color of their building.

I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target.

[vidcc]

Yes, Vioxx is a rare example. You call the FDA too slow, yet you want to get upset when a complication occurs. If we want 100%, don't expect to see any drugs soon.

I just responded to your point about the FDA being strict by asking if you felt strictness meant safe.. I didn't say they were "too slow" i said they may not be as fast as their counterparts.....then i replied to your asking for more infomation about "safety" and then "effectiveness" and in that post i only mentioned the FDA once when i was talking about the drugs that had been approved had been drugs whos research and developement money was used to produce drugs that purely compete with existing drugs. The one mention of the FDA was to say that the drugs had been approved

What you are not taking into account are the drugs that never make it. The problems you never see, because they are caught.

How do you know what i do or do not take into account ? If i posted about every aspect i would need several pages just for one post

Who gets AIDS from blood products? No one, thanks to the FDA. The FDA sets up a lot of overly-protective measures, that sometimes require factories to be overhauled. As in the vaccine case, the companies just say, "screw it".
Isn't that what the FDA is supposed to do? what is your point? that i am suggesting the FDA is pointless?.... A problem was identified and the solution was put in place
What drug companies choose to make is their own business. They apply for FDA approval, the FDA does not tell them what to make.
Who said they did? My point was THE DRUG companies saying they need to charge high prices to fund research but spend a very large amount of the money to produce competative drugs and not new drugs
As for rare diseases, that is what academic centers and government grants are for.

Drug companies are businesses, not charities.

But we were talking about prices the drug companies charge...the point was raised that they need to charge high prices for research...they also charge these high prices for drugs they are licensed to produced using research gained from public money

I don't mind people who question their government, or wonder if there is a better way,
And could i just be asking if they could be more efficient?

but your attitude seems to be rather cynical. Your purely speculative postulate about the FDA more reflects your attitude than their incompetence.
WHat attitude would that be?
You're wandering further and further from the point of the thread.
And you are on thread?

You say the FDA is probably not stricter, they are probably just slow. And their drugs are not safe or effective and I don't like the drugs they are making,.....
The FDA makes drugs?
Are you suggesting that no other countries are as strict?
Repeat :I just responded to your point about the FDA being strict by asking if you felt strictness meant safe

Where are you going. Does everything we do in America have to be bad? If I refute every point, will you say you don't like the color of their building.
Show me where i said the FDA got everything wrong.... My problem with the FDA has little to do with the approval of new drugs, I haven't put any case about the FDA other than saying they are part of the overal problem with high prices...i haven't said why.
I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target.


The target is stationary...on this occasion i feel the hunter may be on the tailgate of the pickup with the drunk redneck driving :unsure:

[Everose]

Yes, Vioxx is a rare example. You call the FDA too slow, yet you want to get upset when a complication occurs. If we want 100%, don't expect to see any drugs soon.

What you are not taking into account are the drugs that never make it. The problems you never see, because they are caught.

Who gets AIDS from blood products? No one, thanks to the FDA. The FDA sets up a lot of overly-protective measures, that sometimes require factories to be overhauled. As in the vaccine case, the companies just say, "screw it".

What drug companies choose to make is their own business. They apply for FDA approval, the FDA does not tell them what to make.

As for rare diseases, that is what academic centers and government grants are for.

Drug companies are businesses, not charities.

I don't mind people who question their government, or wonder if there is a better way, but your attitude seems to be rather cynical. Your purely speculative postulate about the FDA more reflects your attitude than their incompetence.

You're wandering further and further from the point of the thread. You say the FDA is probably not stricter, they are probably just slow. And their drugs are not safe or effective and I don't like the drugs they are making,.....

Where are you going. Does everything we do in America have to be bad? If I refute every point, will you say you don't like the color of their building.

I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target.


Hobbes, I never really expected the large drug companies to be charities, never really expected them donate their products to the public out of good will only. But after reading of Pfizer's large donations of product to the tsunami victims......is that not charity?

[hobbes]

The FDA is a cumbersome foe to overcome, and the requirements they put in place to ensure that a drug does not have serious side effects(clinical trials), that the drug you are getting is free of contamination and that it is the actual chemical you desire, drives up the cost of the drug.

Many people go to Europe to try new drugs because the process the FDA puts companies through is more demanding than abroad. Drugs we think are new have been around for years.

As for generic brands being elevated in cost here, I think it because our insurers are willing to pay that price. This falls hard on the out of pocket payer, to be sure, but those under insurance aren't bothered a lick.

In other countries, as Maxtor pointed out, the government pays a set price for the drug and thus it is available cheaper to it's citizens.

This is one of the reasons why drug costs are higher here.

Also the reason why my parents travel to Tijuana, Mexico to fill their prescriptions.


@Everose, you are not a charity either, but you can be charitable.

[Everose]

@Everose, you are not a charity either, but you can be charitable.[/QUOTE]




:D But Hobbes, my charity begins at home. :D

[Rat Faced]

I dont know enough about the FDA to know how it works.

I do know that there are drugs available in the USA that the UK Government refuse to license here.

I suspect there are probably cases the other way around too though..

....which also makes me suspect all sorts of "beneath the counter" arrangements on both sides of the pond in this area. :ph34r: