$84,000 Hepatitis C Drug For $1500 by Buying It From India

^ good thread!

When I read this post, I was reminded of something that infuriated me not too long ago. Apparently Goldman-Sacs is trying to figure out if curing disease is a bad business model. Once you cure someone, you no longer have that person buying your product. However, if you don't cure and merely treat the symptoms, you make more money. The goal is profit and not healthy people.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html

 

I have heard about that Goldman Sachs thing. Thanks for the link as I wanted to read more about it.

I just read the first few paragraphs and I am thoroughly disgusted. These sociopaths should be relegated to an island and treated as lepers...they are the ones with a truly incurable disease. They can take their money with them too.

 

As I have stressed so many times before, the AMA, the agency MOST responsible for medical overpricing, is a doctors' union, not a patients' advocate.

At the turn of the 20th century, John D. Rockefeller, a heavy investor in pharmaceuticals, joined forces with the AMA in a successful effort to shut down all medical schools not stressing drug therapy, which invariably only CONTROL symptoms, as the most advantageous mode of treatment.

The mission of the AMA has been stated to be “to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health”. However, upon investigating some of the AMA’s component divisions, a political agenda becomes apparent. The mission statement of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health is “to assure the position of the AMA as the national leader in advancing the science of medicine as the primary mechanism for improving the quality of patient care, enhancing medical progress, and enhancing the health of the public”. Another component is the AMA Political Action Committee, whose mission is “to find and support candidates for Congressional offices, whether it is a new candidate for office who will make physicians and patients a top priority, or a candidate running for re-election who has been proven to be a friend of medicine”. This committee is a powerful lobbying group in Washington. Then there is the AMA’s House of Delegates, their legislative and policymaking body, of which the U.S. Surgeon General is usually a member. It doesn’t take an excessively active imagination to suspect occasional conflicts of interest.

Again, THE AMA IS A DOCTORS’ UNION!!!! Its purpose is not to stand up for patients’ rights, but for the rights of the physicians that treat them. Primary focuses are on increasing income and job security. Claiming that it exists to enhance the efficacy of the medical care that its members practice seems strangely contradictory to its intended purpose. Would eradication of disease and infirmities bring job security and greater wealth to doctors? The AMA supports traditional medicine, mainly consisting of pharmaceuticals which control symptoms but do not treat underlying causes. It has also violently opposed the attempts to introduce more effective treatments for chronic and even terminal diseases, calling ALL of their sponsors "quacks", regardless of documented evidence of proven efficacy. Proponents of these treatments have been persecuted, discredited, and potentially life-saving remedies have been discarded without a trial. Substantiated records of favorable clinical results have been stifled. . . . Could a CURE for cancer already exist???

So, why does the AMA claim the patient to be its top priority? It is obviously propaganda meant to gain the trust of the American public, which is the only entity powerful enough to successfully oppose it. Treatment of health conditions focuses upon management and control, and clearly discourages the discovery of complete cures, as these would not necessitate further treatment and no longer would be a source of revenue. I find it very disturbing to think that it is credibly possible to think that organized medicine in this country is using our diseases and infirmities to enrich itself rather than fight against them. This is the greatest argument in favor of socialized medicine.

The problem is that everyone and every organization needs to be accountable to someone. Every component of our society has the potential to be corrupted, and even when regulated, there are many who do not choose to walk the “straight and narrow”. The businesses that make up the medical sector are profit-motivated enterprises, which naturally strive to maximize profits and minimize expenditures. Is it really to their advantage to discover treatments that cure illnesses or permanently eliminate chronic conditions? Does it make sense that they would willingly promote healthier lifestyles to minimize the need for future medical treatment???

 

why are corps allowed to outsource our jobs to India, but we can't in-source their drugs

 

This is similar (although not health threatening) to this profit driven scheme called "planned obsolescence".

The Phoebus cartel cartel existed to control the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs. They appropriated market territories and fixed the useful life of such bulbs.[1] Corporations based in Europe and America founded the cartel on December 23, 1924 and intended the cartel to last for thirty years (1925 to 1955). The cartel ceased operations in 1939 owing to the outbreak of World War II. The cartel included manufacturers Osram, General Electric, Associated Electrical Industries, and Philips,[2] among others.


The Phoebus cartel created a notable landmark in the history of the global economy because it engaged in large-scale planned obsolescence to generate repeated sales and maximize profit. It also reduced competition in the light bulb industry for almost fifteen years. Critics accused the cartel of preventing technological advances that would produce longer-lasting light bulbs. Phoebus based itself in Switzerland. The corporation named itself Phœbus S.A. Compagnie Industrielle pour le Développement de l'Éclairage (French for "Phoebus, Inc. Industrial Company for the Development of Lighting").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

 

And everyone has the $84,000 but are just too frugal to empty their piggy banks to save their own life? Is that what you are implying?

 

Interesting story but not surprising.

Don't you think many products are very purposely manufactured to fail at some point?

 

Not everyone has the wherewithal to do the research or may not even be aware that there are alternatives. And maybe some are hesitant to purchase drugs online. The point is that this is nothing other than highway robbery of the most sociopathic kind, corruption and greed. And yes, just like vulture capitalism, not all free enterprise is of the right kind.

 

Absolutely. Manufacturing products that last as long as possible cuts into profits. I understand it was rumored that Nikola Tesla was able to create a free energy device. Imagine if no one ever had to pay for electricity and gasoline. Big oil would sure not want anything like that ever made available.

http://free-energy.ws/nikola-tesla/

 

if the government makes it illegal to buy the cheaper good, then that is not a free market

 

Thanks. Pretty interesting. So much for progress, eh? All that matters is profits, apparently.

 

We saw the same thing in the American car industry. American (and European) cars up to the mid 80s wee considered junk yard material after 100,000 miles. Then "inferior" Japanese models began lasting 200,000 and more.

The "planned obsolescence" was talked about but until the Japanese forced the American cars to produce better models...it wasn't going to change

 

I'm generally not opposed to unionized labor, mainly because people don't go to the trouble of unionizing, unless they don't have another option to solve their problems. That said, I agree with you that everyone and every organization should be held accountable for doing what is right and legal. Business also has a right to make a profit, as long as they do so ethically.

Something is wrong with our laws when the "of the people, for the people, by the people" isn't the priority. The Rockefeller anecdote in your post reminds me of the reason hemp and marijuana was outlawed. William Randolph Hearst, newspaper magnate, was heavily invested in lumber and pulpwood, and used his wealth and influence to outlaw hemp because it made a superior paper at low cost. He didn't just stop with outlawing hemp paper products though. He went after it being named in every narcotics bill, even though it isn't a narcotic. When I think of how many children have had to live with uncontrolled seizures, or how many cancer patients have dealt with nausea and pain, because Hearst wanted pulp paper profits, it infuriates me.

I know lots of people do not want government health care, but when we're debating whether to find cures for disease, or charging exorbitant amounts for medication or treatment that other countries don't pay, it just may push us in that direction.

 

The purpose of unions should be to allow workers to negotiate with management, not to allow the industry to thrive by extortion from those that it serves when they are backed into a corner.

 

Agreed. With the collapse of many unions, we've seen wages stagnate and the worker treated as a commodity that is easily replaced, all in the name of profits.

Where we seem to have a problem is with ethics. Business doesn't care about ethics unless required. Business' priority is profit. Government can make them care about ethics, but instead of putting restrictions on business to insure they act ethically, we're removing regulations and restrictions.

It's going to be a bumpy ride for a while, until we get a government that is actually responsive to the people.

 

Wrong - sorry

A lot of basic research is done at publically funded universities - what Big Pharma research is the "nearly the same" drugs so they can patent everything that works similarly to what is primarily marketed

One of the biggest add ons for cost in America is simply advertising

We do not allow drug companies to advertise - we have a list of drugs which are on the Public Benefit Scheme, which because the goverment is subsidising it means that they are the most popular brands - and that keeps costs to minimum

 

Excess profit carries on after the patent expires.
For example over the counter pain killers,the original brand name can be up to 10 times the cost of the generic version.

 

The most lucrative businesses, i.e., anything medically-related. debt-collection agencies, charity event planners, etc., collect HUGE profits capitalizing off of the misfortunes and desperation of others. . . . When government passively endorses the extreme exploitation involved in these activities by failing to regulate them, it loses the respect of its citizenry and ceases to be seen as a moral authority. The end result is our present dissatisfaction with government and division.

 

Please elaborate SPECIFICALLY on any errors in my post.

 

You did not invent it. What do really smart people want for their discoveries? The answer is money. If I am 60 and have reasonable health but need to spend 80k for a drug to save my live, that sounds reasonable to me. If I am 85 and bad health, I will save my money. Why do people think they deserve something for nothing. You are talking about your life he, I feel mine is valuable to me. I will spend the money and be thankful someone smarter and more talented then me saved my life. While a bunch of other people want to bitch and moan that they have to pay to extend their live.

 

5 company's made 20% profit if you do not like it you can start your own company or do not take their drugs.

 

I am saying I value my life and will reward someone to save it. If you think they charge to much don't take the drug.

 

Absolutely. The cost for this drug was over $13 billion. And sales are dropping off already because it has been so effective in killing off Hep C. That includes offering it at cheap prices in hotspots that are developing countries like India.

$84k is the top price anyone would pay in the US. Most will pay $40k to $60k for a life saving medicine. Maybe instead of buying a new minivan or pickup truck they will have to buy used. Oh the horror!

 

Then perhaps, as is already done, it is offered on an ability to pay thru the nose fee schedule. We Americans pay more, cuz we could. So, I think that if a rich man gets ill, charge him commensurately moar. Like if you have five milliions, maybe four million five hundred thou. Since your guys lives are worth SO much moar.

 

Good luck!

Of course, rich people are usually smart enough to shop around, which is going to leave you scratching your head and wondering why the rich don't pay your inflated prices for whatever services or products you provide.