Mickey Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 I don't really see it as treating symptoms rather than creating a cure (I'm a pessimist but even I don't think companies don't want to cure you because it's more profitable to continulally treat your symptoms). I see it as treating something that lots of people have vs. treating something not may people have. Pharma wants to treat things with a large customer base - athritis pain, high cholesterol, ED. These drugs will sell and make money (again - not blasting anyone for making a profit). Pharma doesn't want to treat things like liver failure due to some sort of enzyme deficiency that only 1000 people are treated for in a year. The bigger picture is how do you get pharma to create effective drugs that can do tremendous good for a limited number of people at the same time they are working on another hair growth pill that could sell like crazy if effective? In a free market system with for-profit companies this is hard to do - there's got to be a better way. 571001[/snapback] That is always a problem for the "free market fixes all" crowd. Free markets chase profits and if a compelling need carries no profits, it will not be filled by a free market. On the other hand, the absence of a free market can lead to even worse problems. That is the fault line upon which policy alternatives precariously must perch. Balancing a free market so that these companies flourish while at the same time finding a way to steer some of their resources into less profitable endeavors is one approach that could work. I hate the way they advertise prescription drugs. Most of that advertising is spent to steal market share from a pharmacologically indistinguishable competitor. The anti-depressant market is just a coke vs. pepsi style battle between Celexa, Paxil and other serotonin reuptake inhibitors. That results in tons of money going to marketing which, in the end, never moves the market enough to justify the expense.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 It's true that diabetes is an endocrine disease, not a disease of the foot. However, good podiatric care is necesary for diabetics and we know it helps prevent complications. Diabetes, however well it is controlled by medications, will eventually break down the body, and it will affect the blood vessels and nerves in the legs and feet. 563232[/snapback] Can't diabetes be completely controlled through diet and exercise without the use of insulin? I've read a couple of authors who have said it's possible.
IowaBill Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Can't diabetes be completely controlled through diet and exercise without the use of insulin? I've read a couple of authors who have said it's possible. 571209[/snapback] I am a diabetic. Like many people with the condition, I try to control through diet and exercise. I could probably try harder. Still, I excercise 45 minutes a day, minimal, with cardio - muscle tone routine develpoed by a personal trainer. My diet is OK, my BMI is within normal limits. I still have to take insulin. Your body needs glucose to function. Diabetics can't break it down properly. I agtree that there is a percentage of adulkt onset diabetics hat probably would have NOT developed the disease had they watched their diets and exercised more, but I don't think all diabetes can be controlled that way. Its easy to paint diabetics as victims of their own bad habits (didn't say you were doing that, JSP), but it really isn' that simple. I developed diabetes as a result of bad case of pancreatitus some years ago from systemic infection I got. To get a sliver lining pout of the deal, I am probably in the best shape I have been in since high shcool. Gotta take the bad with the good, I guess. I am just happy to be alive and be able to watch the Bills slowly self destruct.
GG Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 ... That results in tons of money going to marketing which, in the end, never moves the market enough to justify the expense. 571191[/snapback] And you deduce this from your long history of analyzing how drug companies operate and the nature of global pharma competition. Question for the other folks, who would be the grand arbiter to decide how funding would be allocated to fight the thousands of not-common diseases that afflict a tiny segment of the population? Where are pharma cos going to get the funding to research new drugs if they don't get the profits from mainstream drugs?
KRC Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Where are pharma cos going to get the funding to research new drugs if they don't get the profits from mainstream drugs? 571276[/snapback] Ooooh...Oooh...Government handouts. What do I win?
stuckincincy Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 The more diseases you cure, the longer the people live to catch new diseases. It's a highly superficial argument to say that medical industry only benefits when it doesn't cure people. Kind of like the adage that car companies don't build cars that last forever because they would go out of business. IowaBill had the right answer - many people see a doctor when it's too late. Seeing a podiatrist for diabeties is the proverbial chair on the Titanic. 563156[/snapback] For monetary reasons, treatment trumps cure. Don't stroke them with conjecture. When you start asking a physician questions, most reach for the doorknob.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 I am a diabetic. Like many people with the condition, I try to control through diet and exercise. I could probably try harder. Still, I excercise 45 minutes a day, minimal, with cardio - muscle tone routine develpoed by a personal trainer. My diet is OK, my BMI is within normal limits. I still have to take insulin. Your body needs glucose to function. Diabetics can't break it down properly. I agtree that there is a percentage of adulkt onset diabetics hat probably would have NOT developed the disease had they watched their diets and exercised more, but I don't think all diabetes can be controlled that way. Its easy to paint diabetics as victims of their own bad habits (didn't say you were doing that, JSP), but it really isn' that simple. I developed diabetes as a result of bad case of pancreatitus some years ago from systemic infection I got. To get a sliver lining pout of the deal, I am probably in the best shape I have been in since high shcool. Gotta take the bad with the good, I guess. I am just happy to be alive and be able to watch the Bills slowly self destruct. 571261[/snapback] No, no, I wasn't saying that at all. It's just I've read some people who've developed adult-onset type II diabetes have shaped themselves up so well that they have gone from an injected insulin to an oral insulin to no insulin at all through diet and exercise. Ray Kurzeil being one example. Fortunately I'm not a diabetic (I think), though I just had bloodwok done today to check my cholesterol and blood sugar.
The Avenger Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Ooooh...Oooh...Government handouts. What do I win? 571279[/snapback] Government handouts are a terrible thing...until the money goes to solving a disease YOU have that nobody else is willing to fund... I don't have a problem with the government helping to spur the development of drugs that won't make pharma billions - the free market system doesn't allow these drugs to be developed and it ultimately does benefit society the way it could. Besides, look at all the stupid things the government already spends money on...
KRC Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Government handouts are a terrible thing...until the money goes to solving a disease YOU have that nobody else is willing to fund... I don't have a problem with the government helping to spur the development of drugs that won't make pharma billions - the free market system doesn't allow these drugs to be developed and it ultimately does benefit society the way it could. Besides, look at all the stupid things the government already spends money on... 571395[/snapback] If the government does not fund a specific disease I have (or my wife has or my family has), so be it. It is not the government's responsibility to do that. It is up to the private sector to do that. People decide how and where their money is spent. Limiting profits has never been a good thing. Sorry, but I cannot contribute to the "well, the government already wastes a #@*&load of money, why not waste more" philosophy.
The Avenger Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 If the government does not fund a specific disease I have (or my wife has or my family has), so be it. It is not the government's responsibility to do that. It is up to the private sector to do that. People decide how and where their money is spent. Limiting profits has never been a good thing. Sorry, but I cannot contribute to the "well, the government already wastes a #@*&load of money, why not waste more" philosophy. 571404[/snapback] If you consider funding new drug research "wasting money"... Your adherence to Milton Friedman style free market economics is admirable - may you never get a rare form of liver cancer that might shake that faith in that all-powerful profit driven system.
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 may you never get a rare form of liver cancer that might shake that faith in that all-powerful profit driven system. 571469[/snapback] That's just so damn nice. Perhaps one day government will have enough money to do everything for everyone. Because giving them that kind of power throughout history has rarely had consequences. I've always found it interesting that people can be so mistrustful of "corporations" but will gladly suck from the teat of government. Government is easily the largest and most corrupt corporation in existance, regardless of which country or society we're looking at. It's fun to pretend that'll change, though.
Chilly Posted January 18, 2006 Author Posted January 18, 2006 Ooooh...Oooh...Government handouts. What do I win? 571279[/snapback] Duh, you win a Government handout!
GG Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 If you consider funding new drug research "wasting money"... Your adherence to Milton Friedman style free market economics is admirable - may you never get a rare form of liver cancer that might shake that faith in that all-powerful profit driven system. 571469[/snapback] Is it the government's responsibility to clad you in 6" of steel armament to prevent you from getting killed when a random car jumps the curb and nails you?
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 may you never get a rare form of liver cancer that might shake that faith in that all-powerful profit driven system. 571469[/snapback] Where does it say in the Constitution that the government is supposed to cure my liver cancer? Why are people so frickin' afraid to die? It's going to happen no matter what you do.
The Avenger Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Where does it say in the Constitution that the government is supposed to cure my liver cancer? Why are people so frickin' afraid to die? It's going to happen no matter what you do. 571783[/snapback] Where does it say that the government is supposed to protect me by inspecting the meat I eat? Where does it say the government is supposed to make sure I don't die in a plane crash by creating an air traffic control system? Where does it say that the government is supposed to protect me by creating/funding the NIH and the CDC? Where does it say that there should be safety standards for automobiles? Guess the only role the government has in protecting me and making sure I don't die is to go root out WMDs in Iraq, huh? Yes sir - the government isn't supposed to protect me or help society - in a free market system the market will solve all the problem.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Where does it say that the government is supposed to protect me by inspecting the meat I eat? Where does it say the government is supposed to make sure I don't die in a plane crash by creating an air traffic control system? Where does it say that the government is supposed to protect me by creating/funding the NIH and the CDC? Where does it say that there should be safety standards for automobiles? Guess the only role the government has in protecting me and making sure I don't die is to go root out WMDs in Iraq, huh? Yes sir - the government isn't supposed to protect me or help society - in a free market system the market will solve all the problem. 571836[/snapback] A store that sells bad meat would go out of business. It would be in the store's best interest to inspect the meat it sells. An airline could not stay in business without air traffic control so it would be in the Airline's best interest to invest in one, perhaps with other airlines. Actually I have no problem with the government running an air traffic control system as it could be seen as a defensive measure. Airlines should be charged to use it though and I couldn't tell you if they pay right now or not. The NIH and/or CDC also fall under defending the citizenry from threats foreign and domestic. It is NOT in a government's best interests to see it's population wiped out en masse but that still doesn't make it the governments job to cure disease and wipe your ass you big kitty. When o when will "liberals" and most Democrats stop being so god damn cowardly and publicly declare that they are socialists? They at least own up to it in Europe.
KRC Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 If you consider funding new drug research "wasting money"... Your adherence to Milton Friedman style free market economics is admirable - may you never get a rare form of liver cancer that might shake that faith in that all-powerful profit driven system. 571469[/snapback] Here is a thought...I know it is crazy...but how about allowing me to keep my money and letting me choose how it is to be spent? I know, I am talking crazy here, but hear me out. If the government stopped trying to be all things to everyone, perhaps they could actually focus on what is Constitutionally mandated. Leave the rest up to the private sector, which has proven time and time again that they can more efficiently handle the job. What you are saying, is that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and it is the responsibility of government to take care of people. Of course, I imagine you are one of the first people to complain about the recent NSA wiretapping of American citizens. Why? The government is just doing its job in protecting you. How about the Patriot Act? The government is just trying to protect you. WMD's in Iraq? The government is just trying to protect you from an attack with them from Iraq or from a terrorist organization willing to purchase them from Iraq. How did that whole Katrina thingy work out for you? Talk about efficiency. Of course, private corporations and charitable organizations were there within 24 hours and the government was still sitting on their arses, but let's still let the government handle everything. If things are not working, just spend more taxpayer money. That solves everything. Big Government = RJ
Rubes Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Can't diabetes be completely controlled through diet and exercise without the use of insulin? I've read a couple of authors who have said it's possible. 571209[/snapback] It is possible. For some people, depending on their disease. For most people, that will work for a limited period of time. It would be fairly rare to see that work long-term.
colin Posted January 19, 2006 Posted January 19, 2006 That is always a problem for the "free market fixes all" crowd. Free markets chase profits and if a compelling need carries no profits, it will not be filled by a free market. On the other hand, the absence of a free market can lead to even worse problems. That is the fault line upon which policy alternatives precariously must perch. Balancing a free market so that these companies flourish while at the same time finding a way to steer some of their resources into less profitable endeavors is one approach that could work. 571191[/snapback] nonsense. i don't know much about you, but i gather from your posts you don't understand economics at all. under a free market, without government subsidy or protection, you have competition. while it MAY be true that a given pharma won't want to sell a cure for a disease that it thinks it will make more money off of just treating rather than curing, don't you think their competition might have just a touch of incentive to sell the cure and make some money while taking market share from their competitor? you make the mistake most (economic) socialists make, you are assuming that free market means "corporations are in control". corporations are not government (although they are protected by the government, and would have less protection in a more free market, but that's a whole other ball of wax), they are groups of people with some capital and ideas trying to make money and grow. the do not (and can not) simply conspire to maximize their own collective profits at the expense of all the good men and women living under their despotic heel. they are at the mercy of the buying public, and of each other. even if some corporations schemed to collude and eliminate competition (in other words act something like a labour union) there is huge incentive to cheat (ever heard of a prisoner's dilema?) and groups outside of the cartel will look at the protectionist ring as something to eat. so no, you don't think corporations left unfettered will hold back cures for diseases (since they can't), you just FEEL it emotionaly. and it is wrong.
Recommended Posts