• The stats about pharmaceutical companies
    28 replies, posted
A really informative infographic I found from [url]http://www.onlinecollegesanduniversities.com/pharmaceutical-companies/[/url] Pharmaceutical companies are just in on making the gap between rich and poor even wider. [IMG]http://www.onlinecollegesanduniversities.com/pharmaceutical-companies/pharma.jpg[/IMG]
i'll now feel even better when recreationally misusing pharmaceuticals!
what the fuck that is sick.
nah thats just capitalism
Probably exaggerated but all true. Here's another related image that I believe Pome linked me to a while ago: [img]http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1005/drugged-culture/transparency.jpg[/img]
I'm disgusted, but not surprised in the least
Yet they're our #1 enemy in the war on drugs pushing lobby to keep things like marijuana illegal : because it is not patented and not patentable.
Exactly. Any industry whose primary goal is to make money doesn't give a fuck about the people, at least not in the USA.
i thought we all knew that the big pharma was evil anyway?
Public healthcare is the way forward. I don't care how much your silly news networks believe it's communism; it's the way forward.
[QUOTE=Doozle;24339488]Public healthcare is the way forward. I don't care how much your silly news networks believe it's communism; it's the way forward.[/QUOTE] Just like here in Quebec (Canada) : Free health care for everyone with really cheap meds for everyone. Plus, it is illegal to make advertisements for pharmaceuticals.
[QUOTE=vachon644;24350026]Just like here in Quebec (Canada) : Free health care for everyone with really cheap meds for everyone. Plus, it is illegal to make advertisements for pharmaceuticals.[/QUOTE] So how do you get the US to do the same?
[QUOTE=-Kaider-;24350743]So how do you get the US to do the same?[/QUOTE] Try telling them to stop earning $200 billion a year, it's not gonna happen unfortunately.
...all for a bunch of stupid fucking pieces of paper with numbers on them.
I really like those stupid pieces of paper though..
[QUOTE=Kyle v2;24351628]...all for a bunch of stupid fucking pieces of paper with numbers on them.[/QUOTE] Those pieces of paper get me drugs. But I see your point.
Without insurance my seizure meds would be over 400 dollars for a 60 pills.
In the UK it would cost probably about £8 for each time you go to get more.
To be honest I'm not surprised by this at all. Holy shit the Xanax markup is ridiculous.
I always knew Health Care companies were bastards, but damn
[QUOTE=Pr0vologne;24379933]To be honest I'm not surprised by this at all. Holy shit the Xanax markup is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] The argument is that they spend a lot of time and money researching and testing. It's still sick though.
Tell us something we might not know. Heh. I'm just sayin from a depressive prospective.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;24396629]The argument is that they spend a lot of time and money researching and testing. It's still sick though.[/QUOTE] The fact is they get other people to do the tests, then pay them for the information. It's cheaper that way
The sad, sad truth.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;24396629]The argument is that they spend a lot of time and money researching and testing. It's still sick though.[/QUOTE] yeah, but that's still completely unfair to the people who are being prescribed it for a unnecessarily high markup.
ITT: People who know nothing about correctly interpreting statistics and everything about mindlessly blaming capitalism. [editline]09:25AM[/editline] Ok, let me just address a few of the "issues": [b]More money are used on ads than R&D:[/b] Ok, let's imagine this graph (because I'm too lazy to draw it in paint). On the x-axis it has surplus caused by ads, on the y-axis it has money spent on ads. Now this graph will rise until it reaches a point where more advertising is no longer profitable AKA equilibrium. I think it is fair to assume that they will indeed try to make as much as possible and seek out this equilibrium, [b]regardless of how much money is spent on R&D.[/b] If they didn't, they would have [b]less[/b] money for R&D. Ads emerge because the customers demand them and reward the companies that use them. If you don't like it, buy something that's not on TV. If it's not cheaper, you can deduce that you shouldn't blame the ads, but rather that which prevents competing prices (probably state "regulations") I'm on a screen keyboard (broke my real one), so I'm stopping here. The others are just as stupid, you just need half a brain that didn't jump on the anti-capitalism bandwagon to see it.
[QUOTE=Lenni;24428310]ITT: People who know nothing about correctly interpreting statistics and everything about mindlessly blaming capitalism. [editline]09:25AM[/editline] Ok, let me just address a few of the "issues": [b]More money are used on ads than R&D:[/b] Ok, let's imagine this graph (because I'm too lazy to draw it in paint). On the x-axis it has surplus caused by ads, on the y-axis it has money spent on ads. Now this graph will rise until it reaches a point where more advertising is no longer profitable AKA equilibrium. I think it is fair to assume that they will indeed try to make as much as possible and seek out this equilibrium, [b]regardless of how much money is spent on R&D.[/b] If they didn't, they would have [b]less[/b] money for R&D. Ads emerge because the customers demand them and reward the companies that use them. If you don't like it, buy something that's not on TV. If it's not cheaper, you can deduce that you shouldn't blame the ads, but rather that which prevents competing prices (probably state "regulations") I'm on a screen keyboard (broke my real one), so I'm stopping here. The others are just as stupid, you just need half a brain that didn't jump on the anti-capitalism bandwagon to see it.[/QUOTE] first, i don't appreciate the way you raise yourself above the rest of us, just because you apparently 'understand how to correctly interpret statistics' (oh and btw, look up 'split infinitive' and realise that you don't know everything, especially about grammar). now, as you were too lazy to design a graph, i'll do it for you. bear in mind this is from somebody who has studied, pretty extensively, accounting, of which break-even analysis is a major component, and is going to university to study maths in a few weeks time: [img]http://i34.tinypic.com/287gemp.png[/img] now, you can see that the axiom of break-even is, of course, defined as a direct link between the expenditure and generated return; shown in grey. the expenditure shown as the solid black line, following a generic curve of inverse proportionality (some of you physics majors might interpret it similarly to a graph of current saturation). now, please explain what your fabulous graph has to do with research and development costs. please feel free to refer to the graph as best you can; i'm looking forward to your reply.
[QUOTE=Pome;24435662]first, i don't appreciate the way you raise yourself above the rest of us, just because you apparently 'understand how to correctly interpret statistics' (oh and btw, look up 'split infinitive' and realise that you don't know everything, especially about grammar). now, as you were too lazy to design a graph, i'll do it for you. bear in mind this is from somebody who has studied, pretty extensively, accounting, of which break-even analysis is a major component, and is going to university to study maths in a few weeks time: [img]http://i34.tinypic.com/287gemp.png[/img] now, you can see that the axiom of break-even is, of course, defined as a direct link between the expenditure and generated return; shown in grey. the expenditure shown as the solid black line, following a generic curve of inverse proportionality (some of you physics majors might interpret it similarly to a graph of current saturation). now, please explain what your fabulous graph has to do with research and development costs. please feel free to refer to the graph as best you can; i'm looking forward to your reply.[/QUOTE] My exact point being that it has nothing to do with R&D. The optimal investment in marketing is not dependent on the amount spent in R&D, so the fact that "big pharma" spends double as much in ads says nothing about how much they could potentially use on R&D, contrary to the implied point in the OP.
This makes me rage: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxJomeak4V4[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.