Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#101

Post by makmanalp »

protomyth wrote: post #88
makmanalp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the idea of the government paying for clinical trials, but then doesn't that incentivize pharma companies throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks, and basically wasting money on trials that they know are long shots? I think the trial costs belonging to the company is right. Anyway, regardless, what if pharma was only slightly or moderately profitable instead of insanely profitable? I don't want…

Well, frankly, having a big bag of cash is what got us a lot of the specialist doctors in tough areas requiring a lot of years of work. There is nothing wrong with making money if you provide a service worth it. We get nowhere when we deamonize money. Don't pay for failure if you care about that, but maybe we need a whole heck of a lot more throwing it at the wall than we have now. I can see some startups wanting to…

Yeah, I'm absolutely not against researchers and specialists and people who /work on/ this stuff being well paid, it just seems like the bulk of the profits goes to shareholders (I'm guessing mostly large institutional investors) rather than getting reinvested back into other efforts for the greater good. I'm questioning whether we really need that component of it all.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#102

Post by refurb »

cmdrfred wrote: post #60
StClaire wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generic manufacturers don't spend money on R&D

Yes they do. They have to prove that their version of the drug works in the same manner as the original via clinical trials.

At an absolute fraction of the cost of a new drug. All they need to do is prove their drug formulation has the same bioavailability as the branded drug. The cost of doing that is measured in a few millions of dollars.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#103

Post by refurb »

robotresearcher wrote: post #72
jostmey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US pays an unfair burden to cover the cost of developing new drugs. That said, many drug companies seem more concerned with selling drugs that are barely better than a placebo and have cut back on research efforts.

The US is paying for "ask your doctor about X" ads, which in many places are forbidden. That's just wasted money.

That's just wasted money.

Why would a drug company spend money on DTC advertising if it "wasted" money? Your comment suggests they'd be better off not doing it at all.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#104

Post by criddell »

refurb wrote: post #100
criddell wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the march-in rights idea. It sounds similar to eminent domain. If eminent domain can be used to expropriate private property for public use, it seems like there could be something similar for intellectual property.

And what do you think the impact on biotech VC money will be? Would you invest in a company if the gov't could confiscate the intellectual property?

I think the impact would be similar to the impact eminent domains laws have on real estate investment.

What do you think the impact of withholding drugs from those that can't afford them could be?

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#105

Post by drewrv »

refurb wrote: post #99
drewrv wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing based on value provided to the customer makes a lot of sense for phones and web apps and cheetos. But how much do you value being alive? The "value" of a lifesaving drug is essentially unbounded, most people will pay anything to stay alive. That's one of the reasons healthcare is an edge case where the typical rules of capitalism don't work. So yes, it is unfair to have some industries price their products ba…

Go talk to the NHS. They value a year of healthy human life at 30,000 GBPs. And if you take your idea to the extreme, then every person should have access to every type of medical care regardless of the value offered?

Every society rations medical care, it's a finite resource. Sure, bureaucrats in some countries do a cost benefit analysis with human lives. That's unfortunate, but I believe it's better than what we do in the US. Here we ration medical care by patient wealth, which strikes me as dystopian.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#106

Post by protomyth »

makmanalp wrote: post #101
protomyth wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, frankly, having a big bag of cash is what got us a lot of the specialist doctors in tough areas requiring a lot of years of work. There is nothing wrong with making money if you provide a service worth it. We get nowhere when we deamonize money. Don't pay for failure if you care about that, but maybe we need a whole heck of a lot more throwing it at the wall than we have now. I can see some startups wanting to…

Yeah, I'm absolutely not against researchers and specialists and people who /work on/ this stuff being well paid, it just seems like the bulk of the profits goes to shareholders (I'm guessing mostly large institutional investors) rather than getting reinvested back into other efforts for the greater good. I'm questioning whether we really need that component of it all.

So do the bulk of the risks. Those profits power retirement accounts among other investors. Given on what forum we are discussing this, investors are important too.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#107

Post by whatdiditsay88 »

yellow_viper wrote: post #77
mullen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has not done a single thing he said he would. He is all talk. This is just another issue that he will just talk and nothing will happen.

He has done loads of things he said he would http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... Promise kept - 5 Compromise - 1 Stalled - 1 In the works - 14 Promise broken - 0

Many pundits were calling the TPP dead before the election. All the candidates had come out against it by summer. Congress wasn't gonna take it up, Republicans to piss on Obama some more, but also why bother with all the Presidential options are dissing the idea.

His immigration stuff remains to be seen. The first attempt was shut down. Second is pending.

He nominated a judge. WOW! All that power and staff, and ability. A nomination appears! And it was basically from a dossier already vetted candidates handed to him. May as well just put their pictures on a dart board.

The lifetime ban is an executive order, which can be immediately revoked by him or the next President, or the courts. So, you know. "Lifetime."

Among the rest of the Trump stories, like the rest of the political powers in the world thinking he's a joke, a cruel tyrant, flaunting his win, functionally illiterate, tearing apart families. And he's got 4 mediocre actions accomplished.

Woo, really breaking a sweat, Donnie.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#109

Post by robotresearcher »

refurb wrote: post #103
robotresearcher wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is paying for "ask your doctor about X" ads, which in many places are forbidden. That's just wasted money.

That's just wasted money. Why would a drug company spend money on DTC advertising if it "wasted" money? Your comment suggests they'd be better off not doing it at all.

It's not the companies' money being wasted. It's patients' money.

The nation would be better off without the ads. They create an artificially inflated demand.

Re: Trump Sends Pharma Stocks Down with New Tweet on Drug Prices

#110

Post by arethuza »

mastax wrote: post #81
arethuza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can buy a ventolin inhaler for £10 over the counter" Ventolin inhalers are apparently available over the counter in pharmacies in the UK - where does the government enter into that?

This part: > if I went to the Doctor it would be free probably reduces what people are willing to pay.

But nobody is forcing pharmacies to sell them at a loss so they must presumably be making a decent commercial return on them at £10?

[NB Prescription charges aren't the same throughout the UK and where you do pay there is a long list of people who are exempt from paying]

Post reply on HN