They are still a business. Profits still matter of course. Timothy Heald Information Systems Specialist Overseas Security Advisory Council U.S. Department of State 571.345.2235
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:42 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Drug reimportation There was a news feature I saw about this, and they showed a pie graph of the costs associated with creating an average new medicine in America and while not 80% was going to marketing, significantly more was going to marketing then to R&D. I'm very intrigued by Oregon's approach. They had a commission go and review all the options for medications for given uses, and created a database of effective medicines and their costs. The basic idea being that 70% or 80% of the time there are older and/or generic drugs that are just as effective at a fraction of the costs of the current big name drugs. Basically countering the marketing and sales forces of the big pharmaceutical companies with another source of information for the physicians and consumers. -------------- Ian Skinner Web Programmer BloodSource Sacramento, CA -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:32 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Drug reimportation 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
