ethics of buying generics

[CCS]

I read that officials are considering allowing foreign imports of generics. I think they better not be under patent, or they should take royalties off the top for the inventors, otherwise that is a slap in the face to GSK and other companies, and means I better not concentrate in pharmaceuticals as a chemical engineer.

Who here buying overseas generics would write these patent holding companies a big check later if your finances improved? While I can understand many college students having a legitimate financial pinch, most people want a bigger house and car etc and spend what they have and will say they can't afford the name brand, but something you can get for free, like downloaded music, always is at the end of the spending priority list and there never is money left over. Also, if someone is trying to keep up with their friends, and thinks they are entittled to at least a certain standard of living, they will aways put the company's royalties last. I really wonder who actually would pay these companies later.

Is lef.org a US site? Do they enfrindge any of Dr Proctor's patents? Though dutas is tempting, I'm tempted to buy Avodart here now since I only need $40 worth each month. However, the extra $28 might come out of my RU. I think that is a legitimate reason to wait until later. Since GSK never did phaseIII studies to give dutasteride to people with hairloss, do you think that changes the ethics of the situation? Or beyond ethics, would 1000 people making donations years later encourage companies to still research hair loss drugs?

 

[jimothy]

As a typical left wing (I am a socialist not a communist) Scottish person, I don't believe in private industry. I believe in state ownership, and companies not aiming for profit. Inventors inventing to impress (or altruistically for the good of everyone) people working because they want to be noticed as the best at what they do. People taking pride in their work.

So I don't have any problems with the ethics of generics. Ideally I would like to see the eventual elimanation of money, people instead supporting each other as cogs in a chain.

I also don't care about houses, cars or any material goods, but would like to keep my hair. It's no1 priority for me. That said I work for a petrochemical company, go figure! I have a degree in abnormal psychology.

Oh, we also have a free healthcare system here, so it's really unusual to pay for medicine anyway. In Britain you don't pay for anything that's considered necessary for the continuation of life, water, medical treatment, surgery etc. I think it's fairer that way.

 

[Axon]

I suspect Merck wouldn't write me a check unless forced to do so by the courts, or out of fear of legal repercussion, so, no for me.

 

[techprof]

College while you are at it don't forget that Merck charged the same amount for 1mg finasteride (propecia) and 5mg finasteride (proscar). Why weren't they ethical in charging 1/5th of the proscar-cost?
Sameway for common people, they will find the cheapest source for what they want.
This debate will never end. There are some local shop owners who lost their business because of walmart. Where are the ethics there?
Do you expect all the customers to avoid walmart and still go to these small shops who sell at 50% more cost?

 

[Old Baldy]

Do you guys realize that those pharmaceutical companies domiciled in Puerto Rico get to reduce their tax by 40 percent right off the top? (Their manufacturing facilities are in Puerto Rico.)

It's a special credit (or taxable income reduction) given to them for going to Puerto Rico.

Look up IRC section 936 (Do an internet search on IRC section 936 and you'll quickly see that big pharma is being "helped" quite a bit by US citizens.)

Some people argue that US citizens already "donate" enough to big pharma companies considering this MASSIVE tax reduction.

Guess where most of the large pharmaceutical companies manufacturing facilities are domiciled?

Although section 936 is finally being phased out it was one of the largest corporate welfare code sections ever written.

Puerto Rico lowered its tax rate for those section 936 companies so they would remain in Puerto Rico after the phaseout of section 936. I think the tax rate is 5 percent.

That money gets taxed at the US tax rate when dividends are paid, HOWEVER, the dividend can be paid when most tax advantageous (i.e., when the related co., is in a loss situation) or funneled to subsidiaries located in the European Union where previously taxed income is never taxed again.

Now, let's look at the research credit big pharma qualifies for. I think that is section 41. It allows taxpayers to claim a tax credit up to 50 percent of their tax liability for qualifying R & D.

Now let's look at the NIH. The NIH provides taxpayer paid research results to big pharma for further development and ultimate manufacturing for sale to consumers. All for FREE!

Now look at the orphan's drug act tax incentives. The list goes on and on ....... and on.

I think we US citizens are doing MORE than enough to help large pharmaceutical companies.

Let me put it this way, even an idiot like Old Baldy could earn a profit if he owned a large pharmaceutical company. I do own stock in them however!!! (And they usually do well.)

 

[global]

As a typical left wing (I am a socialist not a communist) Scottish person, I don't believe in private industry. I believe in state ownership, and companies not aiming for profit. Inventors inventing to impress (or altruistically for the good of everyone) people working because they want to be noticed as the best at what they do. People taking pride in their work.

So I don't have any problems with the ethics of generics. Ideally I would like to see the eventual elimanation of money, people instead supporting each other as cogs in a chain.

I also don't care about houses, cars or any material goods, but would like to keep my hair. It's no1 priority for me. That said I work for a petrochemical company, go figure! I have a degree in abnormal psychology.

Oh, we also have a free healthcare system here, so it's really unusual to pay for medicine anyway. In Britain you don't pay for anything that's considered necessary for the continuation of life, water, medical treatment, surgery etc. I think it's fairer that way.

You believe in state ownership of all means of production, you don't believe in people working for personal gain, you don't believe in money and are not interested in private property, yet you still believe you aren't a communist? You need to look this word up in a dictionary.

By the way we do pay for water in Britain (all water companies are private now) and most charge by means of meters. We also DO pay for the NHS, by having much higher taxes than in the USA, it's just that the people using it may be paying less than they should while others pay more. Also look at how much prescription charges are, 6 quid, that's more than the cost of many of the medications.

 

[techprof]

global, lol.

 

[Old Baldy]

Here's a 2002 analysis by a consumer watch group on pharmaceutical industry profits, etc.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma ... 20profits'

 

[CCS]

thanks for the new perspectives, guys. yeah, if it is leagal to cut proscar in 4ths, and merck takes their factory elsewhere to get the lowest price, then there is no reason we should not get the lowest price.

and for most 20 year olds, a prescription is like a wellfare payment to doctors. we are giving them easy work they don't need to do. the only purpose is to make sure the guys are educated about the drug and kids don't get it, but most doctors just take one look and say "you have male pattern baldness. here is some propecia". mine did not tell me I need a liver test, and i wonder what the odds are of complication anyway.

 

[powersam]

pfft ethics of generics.

anything that allows a transfer of money from our abundantly wealthy societies into far less advantaged ones cannot be a bad thing.

 

[Guest]

pfft ethics of generics.

anything that allows a transfer of money from our abundantly wealthy societies into far less advantaged ones cannot be a bad thing.

if it involves stealing patents then I disagree. is stealing a tv from a rich person's house acceptable if it goes to a poor person's house?

i can't argue much if it's food being stolen. i wouldn't fault a mother for stealing a loaf of break from a bakery to feed her children or herself.

but it's not like hair loss is comparable to starvation.

we're not noble robin hood's.

 

[Old Baldy]

pfft ethics of generics.

anything that allows a transfer of money from our abundantly wealthy societies into far less advantaged ones cannot be a bad thing.

That's WAY too general a statement. (And you know it Power!)

What I gather you're saying is let everyone benefit from the inventions of a human being. I have no problem with that.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is really no better than taking advantage of the poor to benefit the rich. Now you know I'm right Power. (Unless you think all rich people became rich without doing any of their own work.)

"A fair day's pay for a fair day's work". :wink:

IMHO we Americans (and probably some other countries) have given big pharma so many incentives that we shouldn't have to pay more for drugs than other countries who haven't paid for those incentives.

Like I said, "a fair day's pay for a fair's day work".

 

[powersam]

your right, it was a far too general statement. BUT ;

"IMHO we Americans (and probably some other countries) have given big pharma so many incentives that we shouldn't have to pay more for drugs than other countries who haven't paid for those incentives. "

i have no problem with paying more than other less advantaged countries for drugs because i and everyone around me can afford it. though these countries havent given the incentives as you say, you wouldnt deny them the fruits of that research would you? HIV antiviral drugs for example. do you believe that the patents shouldnt be waved in countries such as africa despite the massive amount of life that could be saved through this action?

(something of a topic switch i know )

 

[Old Baldy]

your right, it was a far too general statement. BUT ;

"IMHO we Americans (and probably some other countries) have given big pharma so many incentives that we shouldn't have to pay more for drugs than other countries who haven't paid for those incentives. "

i have no problem with paying more than other less advantaged countries for drugs because i and everyone around me can afford it. though these countries havent given the incentives as you say, you wouldnt deny them the fruits of that research would you? HIV antiviral drugs for example. do you believe that the patents shouldnt be waved in countries such as africa despite the massive amount of life that could be saved through this action?

(something of a topic switch i know )

No, no, we can't deprive people of important drugs. I just wish big pharma would bring down their prices a little bit.

 

[Felk]

Robin Hood baby

 

[Bryan]

Oh, we also have a free healthcare system here, so it's really unusual to pay for medicine anyway. In Britain you don't pay for anything that's considered necessary for the continuation of life, water, medical treatment, surgery etc.

How about food?

Bryan

 

[powersam]

in reply to the robin hood remark, the money we pay for our generic drugs puts money into an economy far poorer than ours. so it would quite simply put food in peoples mouths. or would you prefer to buy some corporate pharma fatcat another lazyboy recliner?

you say we are not 'noble robin hoods'. i agree. but things like tourism and trade go far further in helping those who are lacking the basic necessities in life than aid programs ever will.

 

[Guest]

do you believe that the patents shouldnt be waved in countries such as africa despite the massive amount of life that could be saved through this action?

it's much easier to justify patent waiving for AIDS drugs than it is for hair loss drugs.

 

[Guest]

in reply to the robin hood remark, the money we pay for our generic drugs puts money into an economy far poorer than ours. so it would quite simply put food in peoples mouths. or would you prefer to buy some corporate pharma fatcat another lazyboy recliner?

i'd rather people pay the company who created the drug, yes. and those fatcats helped save millions of lives with their anti-aids drugs and have helped prevent future hairloss for hundreds of thousands of men, if not more. if you want to donate to charity to help the people in disadvantaged countries then that's fine; no need to tie it to finasteride or any other hair loss drug.

there are plenty of charities out there.

if we didn't have big pharm and had the government running all drug reserach and development, rogaine wouldn't be out yet and maybe would have come out, oh, i don't know, sometime in 2020 maybe?

 

[bubka]

no, thats somebodies hard work and intellectual data thus a patent is given... so we should allow some slave wagers to make a drug and import it with royalties...? i mean, what is the point of making a drug if once you do, others can partake in your profits... this would hurt drug research IMO