Just did a quick Google, and you're right. It's not 80%. Don't know where I got that number. My ass maybe. Here's a couple quotes that might be more accurate:
"In 2000, 11 Fortune 500 drug companies spent an average of 30% of their revenues on marketing, advertising, and administration and only 12% on research and development. Drug companies can deduct from their taxes the amount spent on advertising and the amount spent on research and development." http://stabenow.senate.gov/rx/fair.htm "A "reality check" reveals a different picture. Research and development costs are not the driving force behind insurance rate increases; advertising costs are. Drug companies spent $8 billion in 2000 on advertising and employed 83,000 sales representatives to woo doctors. Additionally, they provided $8 billion in free samples to doctors and spent another $2 billion on radio, TV, and magazine marketing. These expenditures - totaling well over $18 billion - were almost three times the amount spent on research and development. Marketing and advertising expenses account for over half of the cost for the most highly used prescription drugs." http://www.rpea.com/hbinews/unrestricted_drug_adv.htm The thing that makes me laugh in this whole debate though is the scare tactic approach of the pharmaceuticals. Their claim that bringing their drugs in from Canada circumvents the health and safety requirements of the US. The drugs are the exact same drugs, they just happen to be in Canada. Are they safe or not? If not, then maybe there's another problem that the pharmaceutical companies need to address first. Really, I don't know all the pros and cons of importing drugs. I just know that my personal prescription costs have gone up 320% in just the last 3 years. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:04 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Drug reimportation > > > I know it is not that high. I spent two summers working for > Eli Lilly when I was in Collged, so I know this first hand. > My father works there, so I will attempt to get you the > specifics, although all these companies are publically traded > so it shouldn't be that hard to find out on your own. As far > as drug prices in Canada or elsewhere, I would ask this, name > one drug that has come from a Canadian drug company that has > had the impact that the drugs created here in the US have > had, or any country that has price controls for that matter. > It's simple countries price controls don't encourage the kind > of competetition or quality of companies that countries that > don't have price controls do. > > > >Can't get to the article, so I don't know if it was mentioned there, > >but the supposed "R&D" dollars that the high medicine costs go to is > >apparently a red-herring. I'm recalling a study that I think > Congress > >did that showed that about 80% of the drug costs go to marketing. > > > >-Kevin > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:16 AM > >> To: CF-Community > >> Subject: Re: Drug reimportation > >> > >> > >> Yeah it is tough to pick a side. A couple of random thoughts, > >> then I gotta go... > >> > >> 1) I don't see the big deal about the abortion pill. We are > >> talking about something that prevents an egg from implanting, > >> maybe four cells at that point. In my mind this does not > >> amount to killing babies. Furthermore the technique is > >> already available in the US, just not in exactly the right > >> dosage as this would be. > >> > >> 2) if you re-import from countries that have price controls > >> aren't you benefiting from those price controls? > >> > >> 3) Seems to be I looked into it a while back and drub > >> companies were making pretty good profits. WHy not have them > >> pay some of their own r&d costs? They are tax deductible anyway... > >> > >> 4) If I didn't have coverage my family would be paying about > >> $500 a month for prescriptions and that's for nothing more > >> than allergies and adhd. The interferon I am supposed to > >> start taking next month would be out of the question. > >> > >> Dana > >> > >> Heald, Tim writes: > >> > >> > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/politics/22DRUG.html?ex=1059451200&; > >> e > >> > n=b529 > >> > 7c3f83c9c335&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE > >> > > >> > Interesting article. Tough to pick a side really. > >> > > >> > Timothy Heald > >> > Information Systems Specialist > >> > Overseas Security Advisory Council > >> > U.S. Department of State > >> > 571.345.2235 > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:52 AM > >> > To: CF-Community > >> > Subject: RE: And we Americans are sue happy? > >> > > >> > > >> > Actually alcohol can be good for you. Small quantities have a > >> > beneficial health impact. > >> > > >> > For some reason tea-total people don't live as long as > people that > >> > enjoy a glass of wine every so often. > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > Sent: 22 July 2003 14:49 > >> > > To: CF-Community > >> > > Subject: Re: And we Americans are sue happy? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Well, litigation seems to be the only form of checks > and balances > >> > > available against the private sector. It's better than the > >> > > alternative, which is more > >> > > government regulation. I actually think the tobacco > >> company lawsuits did a > >> > > fair amount of good. If nothing else it probably kept > >> taxes lower in a > >> > > number of states. > >> > > > >> > > Dana > >> > > > >> > > Adam Reynolds writes: > >> > > > >> > > > I like this. > >> > > > > >> > > > Unfortunately I think that this type of action is sometimes > >> > > > necessary to make an industry more responsible for itself. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > > From: Erika L Walker-Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > Sent: 21 July 2003 23:16 > >> > > > > To: CF-Community > >> > > > > Subject: And we Americans are sue happy? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030720-100147-7083r. > >ht > >> > > > m > >> > > > > >> > > > "A dozen alcoholics ranging in age from 18 to 60 are going to > >> > sue drink > >> > > > makers for not warning them about the dangers of alcohol." > >> > > > > >> > > > Of course, the attorneys are using US law examples from the > >> > > > tobacco suits. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
