My understanding is that it's 14% of the cost of bringing a drug to market, and 100% of the resulting profits.
The article however inffers it's the company gross, but then highlights that much of the drugs research is in patent protection (the changing of non-active ingredients / 1 molecule change) by repatenting modified versions of earlier drugs doing exactly the same thing.
What i've never understood about the repatenting process is why generic versions of expired patent drugs cannot be produced? As a consumer i'm ill informed of particular treatment brands outside of the ocassional headliner such as Tamiflu, so how do they present their new and revised version as superior. Also I remain unconvinced that a patent presenting such minor and/or insignificant changes to the active ingredient of a drug can be considered a fresh patent when it is the same drug with the same properties.
Two separate issues - repatenting and research/innovation. The 14% refers to creative development (new drug innovation). Patent protection is a separate issue, but addressed in simple terms in the same breath. Perhaps the article should have spent more time separating these two aspects of the dirty drug companies' business of market manipulation.
Can't wait to hear the next Rush/Hannity/Beck talking points flymike steals from his dad. 
First off, thank you Becky.
I was just flipping through the channels, and I just saw a FOX News anchor arguing with Michael Steele on the proposal. Like the anchor was actually arguing in favor of it. I was very confused, but it still said FOX after a couple minutes, so I decided it wasn't a hallucination. Then he interviewed a Democratic Senator and started yelling at him, so it was all back to normal.
Rush, Beck, O'Reilly etc. always remind me of Billy Mays. Yell louder so people think you're important.
I was just flipping through the channels, and I just saw a FOX News anchor arguing with Michael Steele on the proposal. Like the anchor was actually arguing in favor of it. I was very confused, but it still said FOX after a couple minutes, so I decided it wasn't a hallucination. Then he interviewed a Democratic Senator and started yelling at him, so it was all back to normal.
Rush, Beck, O'Reilly etc. always remind me of Billy Mays. Yell louder so people think you're important.
I don't think I sound like FOX, I don't even have a tv. I already said what the healthcare plan would need to be in order for me to accept it, but i know that giving the government more power will not result in a healthcare system even resembling the one I outlined. It just won't work and trying to force it is just going to be another expensive, ineffectual blunder by Obama. I think I've said all I can, I don't like being personally insulted when I never attack you guys in the same way when I disagree with the points you make.
Some of you need to learn to debate point for point rather than "I disagree, you're a stupid American"
Some of you need to learn to debate point for point rather than "I disagree, you're a stupid American"
A good way to avoid being labeled a stupid American is to not act like a stupid American. 
I will answer this point, and ignore the others because I can't be ****d!
The BBC have a massive budget paid for the tax payer, and it is extremely difficult for normal television companies to exist. You talk about choice, you don't have a choice where your licence fee goes.
ITV is in huge trouble and relies upon staple low-rent shows like the X Factor etc... They struggle for ad revenue because they are 'competing' with an organisation that doesn't have to work for it's income. It has now come to a point where other TV channels are asking for public money to stay in business. This is not healthy at all.
The BBC can outbid anyone they want (F1 for example). Thankfully we have businesses like Sky that can at least challenge them
5haz calling someone with a perfectly reasonable point of view a 'stupid american' is hugely ignorant, and misguided stance... kinda like the 'stupid americans' your accusing him of being.
While I disagree with flymike and his views, calling him a stupid American only shows your own lack of intelligence.
Regardless of his views/opinions, he has the right to express them.
You're just using the classic GOP tactics, if they disagree, call them names, label them a terroist, and then question their intelligence. Are you Rush Limbaugh in disguise?
He is stupid, and he is American, that is my opinion, at no point did I insist that it was fact.
If he has a right to express his opinions, then I have a right to express mine, swings and roundabouts.
And I didn't mean that all Americans are stupid either, although thats what you probrably wanted me to say so that you could act all victimised. :rolleyes:
Wait a minute, you have a go at me for insulting the intelligence of someone, an then accuse me of lacking in intelligence? If you live in a glass house, dont throw bricks. As far as I'm concerned you and I can call anyone stupid whenever we want, just don't pull me up about it, its my opinion.
Well I guess you are a typical stupid brit who hates typical "stupid americans".
Well said, he is only expressing his opinion, some people might not agree with it but that doesn't mean he is stupid. There is a difference between expressing your opinion and deliberately offending someone.
Fair enough, if you think so, you're not exactly terribly important to me.
Yeah the difference is wether you can show you've actually put any thought into it, and I have...
...flymike has showed a complete ignorance to how the NHS (and nationalised healthcare in general) actually works and its advantages and failings, and has also been completely blind to facts and figures presented to him, while making up stuff and spouting things that sound like they've been taken straight out of some form of propaganda he read.
From what I have seen and by using my powers of deduction, I come to the opinion that flymike is an ignoramous and is as much an enemy to the US nation as any terrorist. I can only form opinions on what you write.
Intrepid, I often think he just takes the minority opinion just to appear edgy and individual, without actually putting any thought into it, and when he realises his error, he will not accept defeat and so holds the floor until everyone either gets tired or decides to ignore him.
I think what you lads mean is you're allowed to have an opinion, so long as it agrees with mine.
Now that is the definition or irony.
There's a difference between calling someone stupid and pointing out that the things they say are stupid. One is an insult and the other is an observation or discussion point.
I've noticed that it's quite a popular pastime around here, to take someone's observation and treat it as if they've been deliberately insulted by it. flymike pulled the same thing on me a page ago, suggesting that I was comparing him directly with the KKK. Naturally, I'm not left with much sympathy for this behaviour at this point.
If you don't want people to think you're a crap mathematician, don't argue that pi would be better if it was rounded down to 3. And if you DO argue it, don't act all insulted if someone suggests that you're crap at math.
Only 56% of Americans know that "public option" is a contextual term relating to healthcare. That's shocking, IMO, considering the significance and ramifications of the bill that the Senate Finance Committee passed this week.
We have more than our fair share of stupid brits. We've had over half a century of lunatic political rule from them, in my opinion.
I've noticed that it's quite a popular pastime around here, to take someone's observation and treat it as if they've been deliberately insulted by it. flymike pulled the same thing on me a page ago, suggesting that I was comparing him directly with the KKK. Naturally, I'm not left with much sympathy for this behaviour at this point.
If you don't want people to think you're a crap mathematician, don't argue that pi would be better if it was rounded down to 3. And if you DO argue it, don't act all insulted if someone suggests that you're crap at math.
Only 56% of Americans know that "public option" is a contextual term relating to healthcare. That's shocking, IMO, considering the significance and ramifications of the bill that the Senate Finance Committee passed this week.
We have more than our fair share of stupid brits. We've had over half a century of lunatic political rule from them, in my opinion.
I wasnt having a go at you, only pointing out the obvious... much like you claim to have done.
Now you compare the guy to a terroist? I think your words are the best reply I could give.... "I think what you lads mean is you're allowed to have an opinion, so long as it agrees with mine........." Or you get labeled as a anti-american terroist.
I said he is as much a threat as a terrorist, this does not mean that he is comparable in any way, his attitude will hurt the USA as much as any terrorist attack, just not in the same way.
Perhaps you should read through a few more times before you bash your hammer in disgust.
It works a lot better when i dont have to explain everything. And aparrently I'm the stupid one? :rolleyes:
Ummm, that is a comparison. His attitude is what I love the most about where I live. He can have any opinions he wishes to have. However, you feel as though he should be my enemy because our political opinions differ?
Im no more disgusted than you are. I just think it is humorous when someone questions ones smarts based on comments on a video game forum.
I didnt call you stupid, you called mike stupid.
Just because both are a threat to the US dosen't mean they can be compared to eachother, you're jumping to conclusions from what I say, either because you don't understand or because you want to be offended so you can bitch at me from atop your moral high horse.
Yes, his conservative, 'it'll never work' attitude will hold your country back, if we had said that from the begining, we'd all still be cavemen.
This is you just a few posts back...
Thats the trouble with preaching to people, you have to practise what you preach too.
Yes, his conservative, 'it'll never work' attitude will hold your country back, if we had said that from the begining, we'd all still be cavemen.
This is you just a few posts back...
Thats the trouble with preaching to people, you have to practise what you preach too.
Geez, guys, come on. There's no need for this back/forth. Let's move on, please.
I was born in an NHS hospital, I go to an NHS doctor when I'm ill, and have spent many a night waiting around in the A&E department of an NHS hospital and FlyMike has some perfectly valid points and isn't showing ignorance at all. While I see the hard work the nurses and doctors have to put up with (the drunks and violence they have to endure is down right disgusting at times) our system is far from perfect, and far from satisfactory.
I know fortunate wealthy associates who have had private care and there is simply no comparison it is FAR superior to the NHS. However only the SUPER rich can afford it. Normal folk are excluded from this type of care. Fair eh?
And let's not talk a out propaganda. The BBC tore Daniel Hannan apart for suggesting the NHS wasn't a system he would wish upon the USA. I mean surely... someone critising the NHS.. never this can not be allowed? They also ran several strories allowing people to mis-quote Hannan without question.
At least in the USA Flymike can watch several news stations with several different viewpoints and form his own opinion. In the UK there is only 1 viewpoint allowed. I have not seen 1 news story in the UK even daring to suggest the negatives of national health. So think carefully about using the term propaganda 5haz
If you critisise something, then you have to accept if someone critisises your critisism, its only fair, you cant trumpet your opinion while saying "hey everyone's allowed an opinion", and then get upset when people rip it apart.
The NHS was a brilliant system when it started. The problem with it now is privatisation.
There's cost-cutting everywhere, and for the most part that means staff. When sisters ran wards, they didn't take crap from anyone. They kept the nurses in line, they dealt with lairy patients, they told the doctors what their department needed.
Now that it's run as a business (ie, for profit) it's a crap service. You can't run something like a health "service" at a profit without sacrificing something. And in this case, it's the quality of that service.
Losing nurses might save them millions per year, but that means less people around to deal with triage stuff like stitches and minor burns. Them reporting to a "department" which understands nothing about what the job entails and only cares whether what's "needed" affects their bottom line profits doesn't help anyone but the people sitting on their huge piles of money.
So the US could benefit from the old NHS, but not the privatised version. I'd go private in a heartbeat if I could afford it, because at least then you get seen and treated before you die.
There's cost-cutting everywhere, and for the most part that means staff. When sisters ran wards, they didn't take crap from anyone. They kept the nurses in line, they dealt with lairy patients, they told the doctors what their department needed.
Now that it's run as a business (ie, for profit) it's a crap service. You can't run something like a health "service" at a profit without sacrificing something. And in this case, it's the quality of that service.
Losing nurses might save them millions per year, but that means less people around to deal with triage stuff like stitches and minor burns. Them reporting to a "department" which understands nothing about what the job entails and only cares whether what's "needed" affects their bottom line profits doesn't help anyone but the people sitting on their huge piles of money.
So the US could benefit from the old NHS, but not the privatised version. I'd go private in a heartbeat if I could afford it, because at least then you get seen and treated before you die.
I am not upset people have an opinion, I celebrate we can have an opinion and voice it. What I do not like however is when opinions are suppressed, or when people start accusing people of doing 'more harm than terrorists'. That is a whole different ball game, and usually discredits anyone using that technique.
The private sector generally provides are far superior service than the NHS. The issue with the NHS is that it costs a lot of money, and when your heading to a possibly depression it's very hard to magic up the money to fund it. Cuts have to be made, and signifcant ones at that.
The NHS now is far removed, IMO, from what it was set out to be. Whereas it was to help the poorest of our society it has now grown into the over-sized, over bearocratic financial burden. The NHS has now made private healthcare only for the very rich (fairness NOT). Instead of helping the poorest the NHS now has to deal with MOST of society because it's made private healthcare exclusively for the very rich. This means its strained way way too much. Just go down to an A&E on a Saturday night.
Thats my opinion though, I could just as easily say that you're 'supressing' mine.
The definition of irony.
(125 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG