Screwing the consumer – yet again:

10 Responses to Screwing the consumer – yet again:

1. Robertv says:

   October 22, 2015 at 10:07

   It looks like the affordable healthcare will be unaffordable and without healthcare.

   OT http://ericpetersautos.com/
2. Cadwallader says:

   October 22, 2015 at 10:41

   The issue of Patents is generally a difficult one. I see no difference in an owner of a product protecting it through patents than an owner of a house protecting it with a padlock. The product cited raises issues which may or may not yield unfairness, if not exploitation, but one tough instance oughtn’t be applied to the regime of protection which patents serve.
   • KG says:

     October 22, 2015 at 17:00

     There’s a damn huge difference in those cases where much of the research has been funded by the taxpayer, Cad.
     Michael Crichton’s book “Next” explains the unethical, greedy and at times downright criminal stuff surrounding gene therapy research. The setting is fiction, but the facts are real.
3. Wombat says:

   October 22, 2015 at 13:39

   I see quite a simple solution.

   The vast majority of drugs are not under patent, yes?

   You simply tell the company to sell it at a reasonable price or all their products will be banned from your market.

   Oh wait… TPP. Guess that option goes out the window.
   • mawm says:

     October 22, 2015 at 14:26

     The majority of drugs not under patent are being manufactured in India, etc. and are being bought by Pharmac for reasonable prices. What the TPP has done is allowed the Big Pharma to extend the period under which they are under patent and get the big payout for longer. It also allows them to sue Pharmac, etc. if they go off to India and buy cheap before the patent expires.

     This is why Big Pharma, Hollywood, etc. donated large amounts of money to Obama’s election campaign.
   • KG says:

     October 22, 2015 at 17:00

     Yup.
   • Darin says:

     October 22, 2015 at 17:39

     The article doesn’t tell the full story-

     http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20140414/high-cost-hepatitis-c-drugs
4. MacDoctor says:

   October 22, 2015 at 13:40

   Two points:
   Firstly, the pharmaceutical company has to cover the cost of research for the hundreds of drugs that turn out to be useless, as well as the cost of the successful one.
   Secondly, the drug often takes a dozen or more years to make it from the lab, through clinical trials and finally through the FDA. This often leaves a sales window of considerably less than half of the patent period. FDA delays, where more information is sought, can leave companies with a patent window of only 2 or 3 years. This is why the US routinely extends drug patents.

   I have not seen the wording of the TPPA but it sounds like we have only agreed to CONSIDER extending patents in those sorts of circumstances (unlike in the US, where patent extension is, essentially, routinely rubber-stamped).

   Having said all that, there is no doubt that pharmaceutical companies use their monopolies to gouge extreme profits. The bigger ones all have very healthy annual accounts.
   • mawm says:

     October 22, 2015 at 17:29

     Yep. Viagra earns Pfizer more than £1bn a year and has been doing so since 1998.
     • Ronbo says:

       October 23, 2015 at 00:58

       ….with small side effects like blindness, insanity and heart attacks – but the patient dies with a smile on his face – You come as you go!

       Modern science – you gotta love it to DEATH!