Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Why do you get to dictate "modest" profits for a miraculous innovation that is improving the lives of millions of people?

Our country fosters the most innovation of any nation on Earth because of capitalism. The brightest minds in the world are here, and they are motivated in part by the possibility of rich rewards when they create something great. Look how Apple changed the world, and Steve Jobs rightfully became a billionaire. Amazon improves my life immensely, saving me time, stress and money every week. Jeff Bezos is rightfully a billionaire. Love it or hate it (I happen to love it), Facebook impacts the lives of millions of people, keeping them informed and connected. Zuckerberg rightfully a billionaire.

Why should the drug companies' profits be capped? They invested millions into the development of these drugs and they deserve the financial reward. They are currently developing even more effective medicines. It's beautiful. You think they should have their profits capped just because they're in healthcare? All that'd do in the long run is encourage the most brilliant minds on Earth to move to different industries. Healthcare is where we should want the most innovation, and innovation is what you get when creators are duly rewarded.

Because when you worship the dollar at the expense of human life, you fail as a human. Not a hard concept.

DP. This is the reality of life. We are not going to get these healthcare innovations without handsomely rewarding the inventors.

No, I think greedy morons like you think like that. The rest of the civilized world values human life (not just the ultra rich). Healthcare for profit is highly immoral and unethical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Why do you get to dictate "modest" profits for a miraculous innovation that is improving the lives of millions of people?

Our country fosters the most innovation of any nation on Earth because of capitalism. The brightest minds in the world are here, and they are motivated in part by the possibility of rich rewards when they create something great. Look how Apple changed the world, and Steve Jobs rightfully became a billionaire. Amazon improves my life immensely, saving me time, stress and money every week. Jeff Bezos is rightfully a billionaire. Love it or hate it (I happen to love it), Facebook impacts the lives of millions of people, keeping them informed and connected. Zuckerberg rightfully a billionaire.

Why should the drug companies' profits be capped? They invested millions into the development of these drugs and they deserve the financial reward. They are currently developing even more effective medicines. It's beautiful. You think they should have their profits capped just because they're in healthcare? All that'd do in the long run is encourage the most brilliant minds on Earth to move to different industries. Healthcare is where we should want the most innovation, and innovation is what you get when creators are duly rewarded.

Because when you worship the dollar at the expense of human life, you fail as a human. Not a hard concept.

DP. This is the reality of life. We are not going to get these healthcare innovations without handsomely rewarding the inventors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Why do you get to dictate "modest" profits for a miraculous innovation that is improving the lives of millions of people?

Our country fosters the most innovation of any nation on Earth because of capitalism. The brightest minds in the world are here, and they are motivated in part by the possibility of rich rewards when they create something great. Look how Apple changed the world, and Steve Jobs rightfully became a billionaire. Amazon improves my life immensely, saving me time, stress and money every week. Jeff Bezos is rightfully a billionaire. Love it or hate it (I happen to love it), Facebook impacts the lives of millions of people, keeping them informed and connected. Zuckerberg rightfully a billionaire.

Why should the drug companies' profits be capped? They invested millions into the development of these drugs and they deserve the financial reward. They are currently developing even more effective medicines. It's beautiful. You think they should have their profits capped just because they're in healthcare? All that'd do in the long run is encourage the most brilliant minds on Earth to move to different industries. Healthcare is where we should want the most innovation, and innovation is what you get when creators are duly rewarded.

Because when you worship the dollar at the expense of human life, you fail as a human. Not a hard concept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Why do you get to dictate "modest" profits for a miraculous innovation that is improving the lives of millions of people?

Our country fosters the most innovation of any nation on Earth because of capitalism. The brightest minds in the world are here, and they are motivated in part by the possibility of rich rewards when they create something great. Look how Apple changed the world, and Steve Jobs rightfully became a billionaire. Amazon improves my life immensely, saving me time, stress and money every week. Jeff Bezos is rightfully a billionaire. Love it or hate it (I happen to love it), Facebook impacts the lives of millions of people, keeping them informed and connected. Zuckerberg rightfully a billionaire.

Why should the drug companies' profits be capped? They invested millions into the development of these drugs and they deserve the financial reward. They are currently developing even more effective medicines. It's beautiful. You think they should have their profits capped just because they're in healthcare? All that'd do in the long run is encourage the most brilliant minds on Earth to move to different industries. Healthcare is where we should want the most innovation, and innovation is what you get when creators are duly rewarded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Here you are. Pharma doesn't make that much money.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7054843/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cost difference is huge. My obese father who is pre-diabetic has used compounded to great success. His insurance won't pay for it because he's not full blown diabetic, and the brand name is prohibitively expensive on his fixed income.

It is criminal that this life saving drug can be made and sold at a tiny fraction of the price and that is not allowed.

Not criminal. Imagine you’d invested millions upon millions into developing a product and someone ripped it off, selling it for a fraction of the cost, thereby making a killing themselves. I support the drug companies who developed these miracle drugs. And I’m someone who does take the compounded version for vanity. I would gladly pay more for name brand if I could get it prescribed to me.

You are disgusting

NP. What’s disgusting? You are telling us that you supporting stealing. Are you a thief?

They should be able to recoup their cost and make a modest profit. What is the profit of most new drugs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?

Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?

You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.

Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?

No, because most companies don’t keep track of profit on each drug the way you are asking. There are so many general costs that run through the whole company, failed projects, etc, not just one winner.

My question to you is - what is “modest” profit and why should a company that does something revolutionary only make a “modest” profit.

hahahhahahahahah well as someone who has worked for a science and technology company I can tell you with a 100% certainty that they absolutely keep track of how profitable each drug is. You don't think Pepsi knew how much Dr. Pepper made them which is why they sold that product? I see now that you're just completely uninformed. It's just sad that you feel the need to tell people to suck it up and feel bad for the big pharma at the expense of their own health.

I notice you failed to engage with any of my actual points. I actually look at pharma financials all the time. Yes, companies know how much they sell of each product. But all costs of a project or running the company generally are not necessarily allocated to any project. You failed to acknowledge this. You also fail to explain what’s an appropriate amount of profit. It’s really easy to throw stones but much harder to solve the actual issues here.

Funny how you "look at pharma numbers all the time" but can't answer a simple question. I didn't fail to acknowledge it. I disputed it because of course, Novo knows how much they profited from Wegovy. Are you insane? Do you even know how companies run? To say that they don't keep track of how well each of their products is selling is so profoundly ignorant I don't even know how to respond. A simple Google search will tell you exactly what the sales were for each drug.

Sales does not equal profit. It’s clear you don’t understand how this works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?

Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?

You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.

Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?

No, because most companies don’t keep track of profit on each drug the way you are asking. There are so many general costs that run through the whole company, failed projects, etc, not just one winner.

My question to you is - what is “modest” profit and why should a company that does something revolutionary only make a “modest” profit.

hahahhahahahahah well as someone who has worked for a science and technology company I can tell you with a 100% certainty that they absolutely keep track of how profitable each drug is. You don't think Pepsi knew how much Dr. Pepper made them which is why they sold that product? I see now that you're just completely uninformed. It's just sad that you feel the need to tell people to suck it up and feel bad for the big pharma at the expense of their own health.

I notice you failed to engage with any of my actual points. I actually look at pharma financials all the time. Yes, companies know how much they sell of each product. But all costs of a project or running the company generally are not necessarily allocated to any project. You failed to acknowledge this. You also fail to explain what’s an appropriate amount of profit. It’s really easy to throw stones but much harder to solve the actual issues here.

Funny how you "look at pharma numbers all the time" but can't answer a simple question. I didn't fail to acknowledge it. I disputed it because of course, Novo knows how much they profited from Wegovy. Are you insane? Do you even know how companies run? To say that they don't keep track of how well each of their products is selling is so profoundly ignorant I don't even know how to respond. A simple Google search will tell you exactly what the sales were for each drug.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?

Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?

You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.

Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?

No, because most companies don’t keep track of profit on each drug the way you are asking. There are so many general costs that run through the whole company, failed projects, etc, not just one winner.

My question to you is - what is “modest” profit and why should a company that does something revolutionary only make a “modest” profit.

hahahhahahahahah well as someone who has worked for a science and technology company I can tell you with a 100% certainty that they absolutely keep track of how profitable each drug is. You don't think Pepsi knew how much Dr. Pepper made them which is why they sold that product? I see now that you're just completely uninformed. It's just sad that you feel the need to tell people to suck it up and feel bad for the big pharma at the expense of their own health.

I notice you failed to engage with any of my actual points. I actually look at pharma financials all the time. Yes, companies know how much they sell of each product. But all costs of a project or running the company generally are not necessarily allocated to any project. You failed to acknowledge this. You also fail to explain what’s an appropriate amount of profit. It’s really easy to throw stones but much harder to solve the actual issues here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?

Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?

You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.

Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?

No, because most companies don’t keep track of profit on each drug the way you are asking. There are so many general costs that run through the whole company, failed projects, etc, not just one winner.

My question to you is - what is “modest” profit and why should a company that does something revolutionary only make a “modest” profit.

hahahhahahahahah well as someone who has worked for a science and technology company I can tell you with a 100% certainty that they absolutely keep track of how profitable each drug is. You don't think Pepsi knew how much Dr. Pepper made them which is why they sold that product? I see now that you're just completely uninformed. It's just sad that you feel the need to tell people to suck it up and feel bad for the big pharma at the expense of their own health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

It's so dumb that you don't even know that insurance companies don't pay full price on these drugs. They negotiate prices and pay way less than a person does out of pocket. But that's ok, right? Insurance companies need to make money. THe only ones you hate are the ones who actually need these drugs.

So why don't you push harder to have the government negotiate lowered drug prices like our European neighbors. You do realize that is why we pay so much, right. Because Europe pays so little, and the biggest purchaser in the US doesn't negotiate.

So I should be happy to pay more to subsidize Europe? You are just ignorant, uneducated and completely illogical.

You think I said you should be happy to pay more and subsidize Europe? lol, ok. Consider focusing on comprehension and larger scale issues here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?

Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?

You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.

Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?

No, because most companies don’t keep track of profit on each drug the way you are asking. There are so many general costs that run through the whole company, failed projects, etc, not just one winner.

My question to you is - what is “modest” profit and why should a company that does something revolutionary only make a “modest” profit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

It's so dumb that you don't even know that insurance companies don't pay full price on these drugs. They negotiate prices and pay way less than a person does out of pocket. But that's ok, right? Insurance companies need to make money. THe only ones you hate are the ones who actually need these drugs.

So why don't you push harder to have the government negotiate lowered drug prices like our European neighbors. You do realize that is why we pay so much, right. Because Europe pays so little, and the biggest purchaser in the US doesn't negotiate.

So I should be happy to pay more to subsidize Europe? You are just ignorant, uneducated and completely illogical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look it up, pharma companies spend years and billions on R&D for new drugs. Many of these drugs never come to fruition. These companies are granted patents, to help them recoup their investments across all their R&D, not just the successful ones. Otherwise, no company would develop new drugs. What’s the point of someone is just going to steal their formulation?

It’s unfortunate that some people can’t afford the buy the branded drugs until they come off patent. That’s more of a public policy issue that a commercial one.

What's the markup on new drugs? How about profit margins?

Of course, there is a "markup' and "profit margin" on new drugs. Do you really think we could have a robust pharmaceutical R&D program without it? Why don't universities actually make drugs? (Hint, they have no money and no financial inventive to do so). Besides these drugs, what are the blockbuster drugs developed in Europe? In Asia?

You talk about profit like it's a dirty word. Please show me who is developing these drugs without the financial inventive.

Yes, I am aware they exist. I don't even disagree that they should make a profit. I asked you how much they are. Do you know the answer to that?