r/PoursTea • • 15h ago

PoliticalTea šŸ—³ļø Bernie tried

Post image
4.8k Upvotes

765 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Cryllor 12h ago

Considering most drugs don’t cost nearly close to what they cost to make a simple league sanction would do the trick.

2

u/Ok_Drag5089 11h ago

Regulations. Like the ones we had in the 50's and 60s when all the maga nazis say we were great.

Of course they don't know that because they just focus on the racism of those times and think that's what made us great.

And shame on the democrats who also sit in big pharma's pocket.

1

u/m0bw0w 11h ago

As much as I support this action 100%, this is a pretty disingenuous argument and makes the stance against lowering drug costs look weak and not grounded in reality.

Drugs cost way more than the cost of manufacturing. R&D costs and the costs of the 95% of novel compounds that fail to yield any results are a massive expenditure that aren't factored into the "cost to make". While much of this is included in public spending because large amounts of R&D come from the public research sector, private research does spend a lot more money than just the cost it takes to make the drug once it's been discovered and approved.

The main problem is that we don't have any universal healthcare system that can use the entire population to negotiate with these companies and to order in massive bulk, like they do in Australia for example. We could also stand to copy their PBS that subsidizes the cost further for most patients.

2

u/chiksahlube 9h ago

R&D costs are recouped before a drug becomes eligible for a generic alternative.

The majority of prescriptions are generics.

And also an overwhelming majority of drugs were also funded in whole or in part by the american tax payers.

Drug companies love to tout the cost of bringing a new drug to market but the reality is most of that cost is burdened by the tax payers already via grants and subsidies. Most research is backed by public funding not private equity. Then they let the private company hold the patent for their part and pass more costs onto the tax payers.

1

u/m0bw0w 9h ago

I said most of this in my comment.

2

u/Tyler89558 9h ago

Do companies eat the entire cost of R&D?

no.

They get subsidies and grants from taxpayers. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the research is being done by universities and not the company.

1

u/m0bw0w 9h ago

Did I say they did? I literally said that in my comment.

Why are so many people replying without reading what I said lol

1

u/steppergodic 7h ago

The basic science research is being done at universities. Not the additional R&D, process development, manufacturing, etc. to take it from a drug candidate to an actual product.

Nobody in a university lab takes a viable drug to the finish line and then hands it off to a company to make billions of dollars. That's not what happens.

Do you people know anything?

1

u/WarbleDarble 7h ago

The majority of drug research spend is done by private institutions.

The government publishes this data, you don't need to make shit up.

1

u/Unanimous-411 11h ago

Yeah, I used to work at a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant, and in orientation I learned that the cost to develop a new drug was upwards of $1 billion. I don’t remember the exact number because this was over 20 years ago. They would soon go out of business if they could only charge the price to manufacture, and it would soon stop discovering new medicines if they couldn’t recoup their failures through making large amounts of money from their successes.

2

u/PanchoPanoch 10h ago

So once R&D is recouped, do they lower the price while keeping a healthy margin without gouging the consumer?

1

u/Unanimous-411 4h ago

I thought it was something like 5 years they could keep exclusive rights, then the patent is lost, or something like that? I’m not sure.

1

u/PanchoPanoch 3h ago

This is true but they can add secondary patents to protect the original/expired patent.

1

u/l2ukuz 10h ago

Are many of these drugs sustained treatments and not cures? The length of time that profit could be collected would get that billion back though? Genuinely asking not posing questions to be a turd, and if we then factor in a longer patent period instead of just immediately inflated cost as compromise for reasonable costs potentially keep the developments coming?

1

u/_________________xX 8h ago

But the ones creating the drugs don’t recieve a large amount of money for their success. The actual scientist doing the work get paid a salary. The ones making the money are the top executives and shareholders. Who take up, on average, over 50% of a companies net income.

This is the problem.
Cutting into their chunk would save a lot of money downstream.
Of course manufacturing takes up ~25% of sale revenue. but thats easily something that could be handled at state level.

Why is it, in an operation involving literally hundreds of thousands of people. The smallest, and most insignificante portion, get more than half the ā€œsuccessā€ you’re talking about. All they did was have money.

The most disingenuous thing people try to make this argue about is money.
The cures that we are looking for are found in the work involved. Not the capital investment from these individuals.. Of course you could possibly argue the work comes from the money. But typically, believe it or not, governments have more money and power than investors.
Reduce individual cuts and increasing government support within this sector would solve most of this.

1

u/Fabulous_Smoke2582 10h ago

Yeah, I can tell you now I ship cancer medicine out for my job, and we consistently deal with truckloads worth a couple million in oncology medicine.

Whoever says making medicine is cheap has clearly never been exposed to the pat industry

1

u/Acrobatic_Egg1856 9h ago

Nah prices are cheaper everywhere else. We know they are marched up 800% sometimes. You work for drug companies or what?

1

u/m0bw0w 9h ago

You didn't read my comment at all. Not even a little bit.

1

u/Acrobatic_Egg1856 9h ago

The truth is in the profits they take in.

1

u/m0bw0w 9h ago

Yeah... and...? I didn't dispute that lmao

1

u/Cryllor 9h ago

I’m not saying drop it to cost, but when you factor in most longevity of a drug and/or how long will that drug be used by one patient, there’s no reason for the 300+% markup. Insulin is insanely marked up, for a drug that is a lifelong medication to so many people. For a one time, one refill drug I get the markup and that’s somewhat fine depending on how crazy it is.

Universal health care is obviously the dream, but there needs to be a profit limit on pharmaceutical companies or something equally out of reach… capitalism