The U.S. is the only country that allows ads for prescription drugs on TV

Which means you're going 6 months to a year before taking advantage of a new treatment simply because you were unaware it existed because you want to violate the 1st Amendment rights of drug companies. And how many people actually get an annual (much less semi-annual) physical?

 

That's a nice theory and it conflicts with reality.

Oh yes, I've read some of it. He is a capitalist ideologue. No point in reading him. His arguments are full of theories, like what you just posted.

 

We aren't talking about average people. You have a very special need, and your interest in staying on top of developments is not surprising.

I had bronchitis 4 years ago and my doctor was so thorough that he caught a bladder cancer that was very tiny and new and easy to eliminate. Things can sneak up on us.

 

I gave you a like because you seem like a decent guy, even if we agree on almost nothing.

 

I don't consider 40% to be excessive. Most retailers get about 100% (double cost) for many products. Highly competitive products, say gasoline or cigarettes, will be much less, but when I was wholesaling to retailers, if they couldn't double their money from my product they weren't interested.

 

Read the second link. The top ten pharaceutical companies' gross profit margins range from about 73% to 94%!!

 

It’s been legal in the USA for about 20 years when the Clinton Admin approved it. Frankly, I don’t care...they are just annoying. It’s up to a doctor to give the script. However, I guess it’s not horrible for consumers to know if options

 

Yeah the other 95% are copycat patents so that they maintain control of the market

 

Apparently you did not read, or did not understand my post. My prospective retail customers were NOT interested unless they could make at least a 100% profit. That's pretty standard. In fact, mine were, while not quite that high, were close. And our products didn't require a $1,000,000,000 investment before we could sell the first one.

 

A bad idea perhaps

But its an even worse idea to make free speech conditional on your approval

 

Most recent example was that little turd who raised his drug price through the roof(can't remember how to spell his name,but he's doing time for other offences)

 

While I agree with most of your post, I don't understand how it is an example of corporations directing government policy? If that were true, why don't they allow cigarette ads? The wrong medication is worse than a pack of smokes.

 

I did a quick search New Zealand allow prescription drugs advertising same as US, Australia and probably many other countries allow limited advertising.

My personal opinion is it should be banned outright. Only talking prescription drugs not stuff like Lemsip.

Would be interesting to compare USA to NZ prescription rates per person and which types of drugs are consumed.

 

BS First their are no copy cat patents it isn't legal. It seems only Disney gets to renew copyrights and patents indefinitely.Once the patent ends the generics start and the price drops tremendously because competition starts. What you know about R&D in the pharmaceutical world is rumor and innuendo.

 

Now tell me what there net profit is the value per share and a lot of things that are far more meaningful than gross profit.

 

RETAIL?? What does a "retail" customer buy to make a profit? I have often bought stocks expecting to make 100% profit, but you didn't refer to "retail customers" in your las post. You said "Most retailers get about 100% (double cost) for many products." And having been in business, I know that many retailers estimate that to cover their expenses and make any profit, they will be charging double (100% more) than their original acquisition cost, but that isn't profit, -it covers costs first and profit is left over if there is any. So as so often happens, what we're seeing here is that as the conversation progresses, the conversation itself changes. Usually that is done in order to provide one side an opportunity for a "win" where there was none.

 

The 1st Amendment is irrelevant here. It is illogical and crooked to make that argument. It was introduced in order to skew the conversation and raise a scare tactic. "OH, GOD, THE 1st AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED!!! HORRORS!!!"

The 1st Amendment is irrelevant as it is not sacrosanct.

 

You will nedd a better teason to violate the 1st than saying the public is too stupid to decide for itself if it wants those legal drugs or not

 

A very good history of prescription drug advertising policy can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690298/

 

But they are so different. The consumer can buy cigarettes easily but a doctor's prescription is needed to obtain prescription drugs. So it could be said that cigarettes are actually worse since they are readily available.

Here is a good history of prescription drug advertising and it shows the pressures and influences the drug industry has had on legislation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690298/

 

I don't "nedd a better teason". Look into the laws we already have that modify and limit the 1st Amendment.

 

The US. is the only country where the poor people, are fat.

 

Who are you to define “reasonable profit” for other people? Ever try minding your own damn business?

 

I disagree. Patients may be more inclined to seek out a doctor for their conditions if they know that there is a drug out there that might help. That isn't the same as self-prescribing. They still need to see a physician to get a prescription.

If people think that they can basically self-prescribe by shopping around doctors, then maybe we need to impose stronger restrictions on when doctors can prescribe drugs.

 

Your reading skills are now in question. You don't seem to understand why I put the words in quotes. And suggesting I mind my "own damn business" is an attack and a violation of forum rules. You're making me the subject of discussion.