Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

That does not explain why Americans pay a different price from Germans or French. They buy the same drugs from the same companies.

Let Medicare negotiate prices like all the other countries do. Congress is too hooked on PhRMA money to do anything.

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

That does not explain why Americans pay a different price from Germans or French. They buy the same drugs from the same companies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

Fake News. American drug companies spend far more in marketing then they do in R&D. Next PhRMA argument?

Then don't take the drugs. No one forces them upon you. Stick to the $2 list. It works for many things.

Because the U.S. government subsidizes the ever living sh#t out of American pharma companies? If you want to talk about "free market" then we need to stop allowing deductions of R&D and marketing costs, allow Medicare negotiating for drug prices, allow importation, etc etc etc.

You preach "free market!" yet line up at the trough for government subsidies.

Slup slurp slurp, piggies. Oh look, I found a pic of American energy, real estate, and pharma companies:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all those R&D costs!

Everyone acknowledges that he is terrible. And in huge trouble.

It’s all those R&D costs. Congressional playoffs have nothing to do with it.

It’s all those R&D costs!

Sackler.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

Fake News. American drug companies spend far more in marketing then they do in R&D. Next PhRMA argument?

Then don't take the drugs. No one forces them upon you. Stick to the $2 list. It works for many things.

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

Fake News. American drug companies spend far more in marketing then they do in R&D. Next PhRMA argument?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

LIES. Pharma spends 2x as much on marketing as R&D. Plus, their R&D is tax deductible, their "R&D" often relies on "free" research generated from government grants.

It's just greedy assholes buying politicians in search of endless risk-free profits. That's it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.d268ef5d7496

Anonymous wrote:Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

LIES. Pharma spends 2x as much on marketing as R&D. Plus, their R&D is tax deductible, their "R&D" often relies on "free" research generated from government grants.

It's just greedy assholes buying politicians in search of endless risk-free profits. That's it.

PhRMA.

Research and development costs are huge. We have to pay for innovation.

If you stick to old drugs off patent, they are cheap.

Corporations and politicians only preach the "free market" when it comes to the middle and lower classes. The only competition they care about is the race to the bottom for wages and benefits.

Meanwhile, they allow monopolies to thrive, risk-free profits to grow, and use their largess to buy off Capital Hill.

Basically, their "free market" arguments are a total lie.

What happened to competition and antitrust laws?