digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at abc.net.au

Reporter details pharmaceutical company marketing methods

abc.net.au — Next time you hear a story about how a major medical journal is reporting a treatment breakthrough, you might stop and think for a moment about what lies behind the report.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pentupentropy, on 04/30/2008, -2/+17so totally believable. Once again, this is the profit driven method of healthcare. It makes it act just like any other business. My local hospital did the same thing. Printed up this whole big article to put in a medical magazine and then flaunted it as if it were written by the magazine itself.
    • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -7/+5"Once again, this is the profit driven method of healthcare."

      As opposed to what, the "maybe we will come up with new drugs when we're feeling charitable" driven method?
      • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Right, because that's how every other industrialized nation in the world that doesn't use profit driven healthcare creates their drugs.
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -7/+3Right, because we know how innovative the European pharmaceutical charity is.
        • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6@nano

          First, by innovative do you mean the ability to make up fake illnesses then create drugs for them, or do you mean by discovering new and exciting ways to ***** consumers out of there money while convincing them that they only have their best interests at heart?

          Second, are you suggesting that Europeans (and Canadians, and Chinese, and Indians) are dying by the truckload from otherwise preventable illnesses because there was no financial incentive for their medical institutions to create cures. That individuals that who have made it their life's work to try to help people, just say "There's no real money in it, so ***** em"?
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4By innovative I mean just that. If you're willing to purchase a "restless leg" treatment, who is to say you shouldn't? The drug exists because there is a market for it. Whether the consumer really needs it or not is a different matter entirely, people buy a lot of junk they don't need, fortunately for them the freedom exists which allows them to make the purchasing decision.

          "Second, are you suggesting that Europeans (and Canadians, and Chinese, and Indians) are dying by the truckload from otherwise preventable illnesses because there was no financial incentive for their medical institutions to create cures."

          They're not dying because countries like the United States develop treatments which they can later purchase. Europe certainly has a pharma industry of it's own, but it's for-profit like any other sensible business.
      • PicklesNCheese, 2 hr 4 min ago, -1/+2Charities have already stepped in to fund work that wasn't "profitable" enough for big pharma to bother with. Guinea worm, malaria...charities are the ones picking up the tab to get these drugs to people who can't afford inflated prices. I'm all for companies making profits, but when it's done at the expense of public health (think inflated pricing for HIV meds) some regulation of an opportunistic industry is a good idea. This isn't a SHOE they are selling us, it's our health.
      • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -5/+1hey nano, you can't talk with these people. they're the lazy protestors who don't do any work because they feel things should be given to them because it is their right. for them healthcare is a right that they should not have to pay for (and since they don't work and pay taxes, they really don't have to pay!). They rather have a family of four that rakes in 100,000 pay higher taxes even though their children have dreams of going to Princeton. These people hate that others are rich, they rather have the wealth spread evenly so that everyone is the same. ***** assholes.
      • warriorscot, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I think what he means is that when it comes to health care there are no "alternatives" the system in a fully privatised health care system is self reinforcing each component wants to make more money and the only people that get hurt are the people they are supposed to serve but have no choice in who they go to.

        Personally I think nationalised Hospitals and private drug companies are the best way as health care is something that is so vitally important to people it can only really be entrusted to the people themselves to administer it. Sure there are flaws with that system, but I'll take the flaws of a universal health care system over the ones of a privatised any day of the week. Im just glad I don't live in America where health care is run by a bunch of cowboys, im sure privatised health care can be made to work but not the way its done in the US. Ironically it works quite well as an alternative in countries with socialised systems that allow people a choice of systems.
    • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -4/+2you sir, are an idiot. your profitless system will bring about stagnation. government in it's lifetime has not cured any diseases, only the private sector has. i hate people that think like you. do you realize that it is government (read the FDA) that has made it illegal for cheaper prescription drugs from candada being sold in America? It must be the fact that canadian drug companies don't have as much pull with the federal regulatory system of the U.S. (it costs drug makers about a $1 billion to the FDA to put a new drug out). it is the government that has denied a true free market which would benefit consumers. stupid stupid liberal you are such a moron, now digg me down.

      Ron Paul 2012
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4I'm feeling sick after reading that story.
    • krakelohm, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6Go see your doctor he has a cure for that ;)
      • Thurloat, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2My doctor lost all credibility after he gave Tony Hawk 3 a 10/10
    • InfamousAtheist, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I hope you have good insurance or plenty of $ to pay for the ad-agency endorsed treatment.
  • Miamifan1354, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Bunch of low-lives..
  • orangefly, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4may cause loss of penis or scalp....
  • drmangrum, on 04/30/2008, -8/+6You can't really blame the PharmCo's from marketing their products. That's business after all. However, the diseases they choose to create drugs for are what baffles me. Restless Leg Syndrome? Who ever heard of that before they started marketing a drug for it? Allergies? Yeah, allergies are annoying, but they aren't THAT bad. Heart Disease and Asthma, i can kinda understand those, but the side effects are usually worse than the attack. Impotence? Do that many men really have a problem with that?
    • Murdats, on 04/30/2008, -1/+9"Yeah, allergies are annoying, but they aren't THAT bad."
      until your throat closes off and you die.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphylaxis
      • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1H Rare Case Guy.
      • rhartman, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Anaphylaxis occurs more frequently than you would think (although the overall percentage is still quite low). The scary thing is that the incidence of Allergy in general in on the rise, as is anaphylaxis.
      • drmangrum, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1They aren't marketing to the people that are allergic to shellfish, peanuts, etc. They tend to market to your average pollen/pet dander allergies. Those are by far the most common. THOSE are the annoyances. I've never heard of anyone dieing due to a reaction to Precious the fluffy cat.
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1You can't blame PharmCo, but you can blame the capitalist healthcare system that dictates this behavior.
    • mike17032, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4I bet the people that have them have heard of them. And alergies can be a ***** bitch, even kill you.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Um... ok "DR"mangrum.
      EPIC FAIL
    • nomadxx7, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You can blame the Big PharmCo's marketing. I'm not sure on the dates but I used to have a .pdf file saved and it showed a blueprint of medical marketing in the 1990s. It showed the overall amount of money Big Pharm sunk into direct-to-consumer marketing. I think the figure was about $500 million that they spent on marketing. So when the FCC was cracking down on cigarettes because they were harmful and marketed towards children, they (FCC) filled the void with Big Pharm advertising. Since medicine has been around longer than the 1990s I"m pretty sure they had a decent business model before hand. Now they play on people's fears and hypochondria to sell medicine. Just watch a medicine commercial and see how vague they are.... Are you tired? Have trouble focusing? Difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep? It may be ____INSERT NEW DISEASE HERE_____. If so, consult your doctor ("whom we probably paid off to get you prescribed to this new medicine we're touting"). Instead of you may just be over tired and stressed.
    • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1well clearly drmangrumif there wasn't a "market" for restless leg syndrom they wouldn't make it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! some people are so stupid!
      • drmangrum, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Yourself chief among them. Do you really have restless leg syndrome or do you need to just get your ass out of the computer chair for a few minutes a day?
    • nydwarf, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah I saw that commercial for Restless Legs Syndrome and the my ***** detector exploded like an atom bomb!
    • logan074, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0You obviously don't experience allergies. Being around types of pollen or plants can ruin a person for a few days.
  • Steinr, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8Drug Companies are so f****ed up! they are not in the business of helping people, they want people to get sicker so they buy more cures! for my last operation I was offered different types of drugs at least 5 times a day and only one was for treatment of an infection, the rest were only to cure side effects and symptoms that did not actually need treatment, I was perfectly able to cope with the pain and did not need any codine or pethadine or whatever that crap is called to "feel better" (pharmaceutical term for "unconscious")!
    • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -9/+2"they want people to get sicker so they buy more cures"

      Car manufacturers want your car to break so you will buy a new one. That out-of-warranty TV of yours, they're praying for it to break. Why does such demeanor matter to you? The strong financial incentive allows all these products to exist in the first place.

      You were offered drugs? That's terrible. Did they force open your mouth and steal your wallet?
      • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7"The strong financial incentive allows all these products to exist in the first place."

        So if it weren't for money, people would never create anything? And would live hollow empty lives, sitting on a rock somewhere waiting to die?
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -7/+1"So if it weren't for money, people would never create anything? And would live hollow empty lives, sitting on a rock somewhere waiting to die?"

          Now you're starting to understand.
        • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1that's how the world works. the reason why poor people are poor is because they are led to believe that being rich is "evil" and greedy, yet you have to be greedy to get rich. blame liberalism, socialism, christianity for this delusion
      • sassip, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Car makers do not take an oath to "First, do no harm..."
    • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1moron. what cures have you come up with? ***** lazy ass liberal that expects everything for "free"
      • relic180, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2You're a presumptuous dick. Go die somewhere where we don't have to deal with you.
  • pyper, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8This might be true in the states, but like Australia in Canada drug companies can't advertise directly to consumers, The ads we see on TV are all from American Stations.

    This is what happens with a privatized medical system.
    • Rikkochet, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6We're not immune. I worked with a guy in Vancouver who formerly worked for a data collection company that mostly worked for big pharma companies. They were involved in collecting and collating the results of drug trials for the pharma companies who used that to present to Health Canada to try and get federal approval to sell their drug in Canada. They pretty much have a blank cheque to discard any "irregular" results they find, which means they can toss out any result they don't want in the report. And they did so, frequently. And presumably they still do so.
      I hate to be the big commie, but until healthcare is completely federalized at every level we'll continue to see this. You either have government incompetence or private subversion to contend with. I trust a for-profit organization less with my life than I do my government.
    • mike17032, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Ya, new things get researched in the most cost effective method possible.
    • elliotys, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1So how does only marketing to physicians help the public. If anything it adds to the publics ignorance, and further promotes the unbalance of information that already exists in the healthcare system.
  • algo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4do no harm.
    to your bank balance.
  • founderofpork, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5I don't even know what to say. This is only going to get worse before it starts to get better. It's going to take just one MASSIVE *****-up on the part of a major drug company. A bunch of people will die because a drug that wasn't safe was pushed through to market and heavily advertised. It's going to take a lot of deaths before anything will get done, and even then there's so much money in this industry that it'll take years and years to chip away at the system as it stands now.

    America is so ***** stupid in so many ways.
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Because we make dollars more important than people.
    • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -6/+3"A bunch of people will die because a drug that wasn't safe was pushed through to market"

      Drugs that are knowingly "not safe" never pass the FDA, and those that have side effects and potential risks make that very clear to the consumer. If pharma had to guarantee a 100% success rate when bringing a drug to market, there would be no drugs on the market.
  • beachtrader, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1A lot of this is standard practice or at least it was. The direct payments for attending a dinner don't happen anymore. Nor do the trips to the Bahamas. Also, some states such as Michigan require MDs to disclose any gifts over $20 given to a MD from a drug company. MDs are still given free dinners for attending a presentation about new drugs, but it mainly happens because so many MDs do not have any time to see drug sales people during the day (or they ban them from the office). Therefore the only way MDs get any information about disease education is to attend these dinners. And all the MDs won't attend a dinner seminar at McDonalds; they demand a nice dinner for their time.
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2That story was posted 6 hours ago. You have any sources to show that those things don't happen anymore?
      • tatsmalone, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0Here are a number of federal regulations and other guidelines, as to whether they are being enforced or not is another thing.

        1. Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)
        2. Office of the Inspector General (OIG), "Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers" (April 23, 2003), 68 Fed. Reg. 86 (May 5, 2003)
        3. False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729
        4. Medicaid "best price" law, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8
        5. AMA Guidelines on Gifts to Physicians from Industry
  • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8I'm still wondering how in the hell pharm companies are allowed to advertise on TV.

    Especially with ads like:
    "Do you ever occasionally feel tired, and irritated? Well these are symptoms of Curvovascular Flexitoid Disease. But now you have hope. You can break free from this dreaded disease with ...."

    Why yes, sometimes I do feel tired and irritated, I need to get myself some of this. Side-effects of anal leakage and stroke be damned!!!
    • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1"I'm still wondering how in the hell pharm companies are allowed to advertise on TV"

      Because it's presumed consumers have enough sense to ultimately make decisions for themselves.
      • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2So let's bring back tobacco advertising then.

        You just might have too high of an opinion of the general public.
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2"So let's bring back tobacco advertising then."

          That's a solid idea. I don't believe in corporate and marketing restrictions for the sake of preventing stupid people from doing stupid things. We are given the privilege and freedom to be stupid. If you want to make foolish decisions, nobody should try and stop you. Whether a decision is good or bad is largely opinionated. Sure smoking has risks, but it's also fun. If the balance for you is in favor of short term enjoyment in sacrifice of long-term well being, go ahead and smoke.

          I suppose most people that agree with you are also in favor of legalizing marijuana for the sake of personal freedom. That's hypocrisy no psychologist can explain.
        • Jassman, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Absolutely. If I want to air a commercial for "Joe's Edible Razor Blades", then I should be allowed to, provided I have the money to do so.

          Edit: I just realized that this post comes off very sarcastic. It's not.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5That's an awfully large presumption, made worse by the deceptive marketing tactics of big Pharma.
        • rockefeller2, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3I don't think the average consumer has the knowledge of a doctor to be able to analyze their symptoms, come up with a diagnosis, and THEN prescribe medication. I think all too often a patient makes a dash for the doctor's office with the intention of getting medication based on a 30 second commercial they seen on TV. Let the doctors do their jobs. They have many years of training.
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Nobody is suggesting they analyze their own symptoms. A commercial is just a commercial, not a purchase contract. If you insist on using every product that's shown on TV, it's you that has the problem, not pharm.
      • Ellipsys, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Under that logic, all of the drugs advertised should be available for the consumer's choice - but they're not. I can't just waltz into a CVS and pick up some angiotensin II inhibitors and a case of opioids - I need prescriptions from an expert in the field who has an understanding of these drugs and their utilization.
        • rockefeller2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Why don't they advertise to only the experts then? I'm sure they've found that their sales increased when they started advertising to consumers or they wouldn't be doing it.
          • Ellipsys, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2That's what they /should/ do. Unfortunately, this country allows its people to be assaulted by consumerism to the point they beg, plead and demand their doctors give them new miracle drug X. The litigious nature of this bloody country makes it so that many doctors who tell the patient "No, that's not the best drug for your case. Here, try these two older, cheaper ones that do the same thing" will get sued for not providing "The highest standard of care". If there are any sales increases, it is only because doctors are so overwhelmed with bullying patients they sometimes give in, for fears that if they don't they'll have a lawsuit on their hands.
    • rockefeller2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I love the commercials for "restless leg syndrome." Yeah, my legs twitch a little bit sometimes, big deal.
    • phanfromcheese, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1The United States is one of only two countries in the entire world that allows "DtC" (Direct to Consumer) pharmaceutical advertising. It's become a serious problem for sure and, I would imagine, it's only going to get worse. The FDA is very understaffed and recieves alot of money from Big Pharma to keep the gears greased for new drugs to hit the market quickly without testing their full effects on subjects. There is a book that was released in the very recent past called "Comfortably Numb" and is a very interesting read. It pertains mostly to anti-depressant/anxiety drugs but has good information on the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. Anyone interested in the subject should give it a read.
  • Shaman760, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4When the truth about SSRI drugs and their effect upon the rationality of people comes to light, big Pharma will have their hands full with settlement suits. I know, because I had an extremely adverse reaction to those drugs.
  • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2So, how does the free market correct this? As a reasonable libertarian, I'd like to know. How do we somehow become better consumers without any sort of regulation or intervention from the gov't?
    • rhartman, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Be an informed consumer. One of the best things you can do is not rely solely on the advertisement or whatever promotional materials you may see at your Doctor's office. Look for any information you can find from *reputable* internet or literary sources. Look for *published* clinical study data on the drug in question. The United States has a wonderful online resource for this known affectionately as "Pub Med" or more formally as "The U.S. National Library of Medicine", www.pubmed.gov.
      • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4In case you haven't been paying attention, BigPharma has gone to great lengths to make sure the only information available, through internet sources or publications, are the ones they're ok with you seeing. Information that works against them never sees the light of day. And despite the persistence you may display, they have FAR more resources than you do to work toward their own goals. Their goals? Profit. Plain and simple.

        The unfortunate answer to this question is, the free market does not correct this, because the medical industry should not value anything over the health and wellbeing of people. Any market involvement does not allow this as dollars will always be more important.
        • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3and what makes you think the government values anything over the health and well being of the people when the US. Pharmas give more money to the FDA every year than any entitity. which is why canadian drug companies can't sell drugs here! the fda has created the monopoly to deny americans cheaper prescription drugs under the guise that they are not FDA "approved".
          • relic180, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Not the government, Doctors. I think that Doctors and medical professionals, given the chance, would value my health more than the accountants and business executives. And yes, it's ***** up that the FDA gives more money than any entity to our government. So here's a novel idea (and I know this is a stretch), maybe the government should stop sucking on the tit of big business and start acting like a government is suppose to and work for the people.
            I know most people around here simply think government is a big evil corporation in itself, and in many ways that's the way they've been acting for a while. But that's our fault as voters and citizens for letting it get to that point. Government is suppose to be a tool of the people to organize and reinforce our social structure and help make us safe. If Americans were able to take control of their government back from big business, then there would be no doubt in my mind that government would value my health more than Big Pharma.
            And by the way, how do people keep forgetting that Fire protection, education, transportation, etc. are already socialized?
        • rhartman, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Contrary to the popular paranoia of the day, it is bad business for a pharma company to publish misinformation and/or market ineffective or dangerous drugs. Yes, it has happened and it will happen again, but it is hardly the norm. PubMed is a scientific/academic resource, not a commercial one. While conspiracy theories to the effect of "Big pharma is controlling what information gets released!!" abound, they aren't really based on fact. Evidence of this is the sheer number of studies you will find on there that say, "X drug was tested in a Y clinical study and found to be ineffective."
          • relic180, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1They don't publish misinformation or bad information. They publish results that they like, and those are the only results that ever get published. It was even stated in the article above, if they don't like what the report says, they throw it away the the report is never seen by the public. It's common practice. It's very simple, very common, and unfortunately well within their rights to do so.
            I would be anxious to see evidence that Pharma publishes results that are less than beneficial to their profit margins, but they don't. You can convince yourself that anything bad going on is nothing but shallow conspiracy theories, but you'd be wrong.
    • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2a profitless system will bring about stagnation. government in it's lifetime has not cured any diseases, only the private sector has. do you realize that it is government (read the FDA) that has made it illegal for cheaper prescription drugs from candada being sold in America? It must be the fact that canadian drug companies don't have as much pull with the federal regulatory system of the U.S. (it costs drug makers about a $1 billion to the FDA to put a new drug out). it is the government that has denied a true free market which would benefit consumers. as well, doctors would be regulating themselves so you would not be that "responsible" for your health if that scares you...

      Ron Paul 2012
  • mcse2k3, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6I moved into a small city about 4 years ago, and I don't know if that's why, or maybe it's just started recently, but I am seeing more and more pharmaceutical salesmen/women each time I walk into a Dr.'s office. Viewing it as a consumer, I think it's kind of ridiculous. I've sat in a Dr.'s office before, waiting to be seen by my doctor, and have witnessed at least 5 different Reps coming in and out, trying to sell their medicine(s). No wonder people are so screwed up, we have salesmen trying to sell pills to every doctor they can find. I think there needs to be a better way to get medicine out to the public. I am personally tired of having to pay a doctor to write me a perscription for something someone has sold to him/her. I usually like to research my symptoms and figure out what's wrong with me on my own before I go to a doctor. I walk in, tell them my symtpoms, what I think is wrong with me, and what I want to take for it. They usually tell me my options, write me a perscription on what I want, I pay them, and leave. Does anyone else have my same viewpoint on this, or is it just me?
    • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4"I usually like to research my symptoms and figure out what's wrong with me on my own before I go to a doctor."

      You should probably do a bit of both. Get advice from an experienced person and through personal investigation make the decision on which treatment path you'd prefer. I agree that the whole prescription system is absurd. There's not need to pay a doctor to give you permission to get something you already know you need. Fortunately the internet is a quick fix to this problem in many cases.
      • mcse2k3, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1True... I understand that the medicine has to be regulated... Thanks to a bunch of the dopes out there, things would get out of hand quickly if we could all get any medicine we wanted, at anytime. They just need a better system. I am tired of paying for the doctor to check my pulse, my blood pressure, and give me the medicine I told him I needed/wanted. They are getting money for allowing me to use the medicine I need (which is total BS). If it's the pulse and the blood pressure that I'm paying for, please let me know and I'll gladly opt-out of that little examination!!
    • FREETHINKER2008, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I have seen the same thing at the dr. I'm sure there are kickbacks for the Dr.
    • rockefeller2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3" I walk in, tell them my symtpoms, what I think is wrong with me, and what I want to take for it."
      I would wait on telling them what you think is wrong with yourself. Let them come up with their diagnose without any bias and see if it agrees with your own. At least make them think some.
    • Ellipsys, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1As someone with many close connections in the medical field, drug reps don't sell drugs to doctors. They legally cannot. All drug reps can do is give doctors free samples which, by law, must be dispensed for free. Most doctors have so many of them, that if you're taking an especially expensive medication, they'll give you packets of free samples to "try it out" without having to pay!
      • mcse2k3, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1That's mostly for newer medications... I've never heard of having a free sample of a Z-pack, amoxicillin, or Xanax... That's the kind of stuff i'm talking about. I know what I want, so why must I go through the same old routine to get what I want, it's ridiculous.
  • 360news, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Its a very interesting article. Where is the original New York article - does anybody have the link ?
  • mike17032, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2So what?

    You prefer the government method of just throwing money at ***** until maybe something happens? Money makes the world go round kids, welcome to real life.
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Except that we're the only industrialized nation that works like this. And last time I checked, America was quickly dropping in rank in education, health, economic strength, population above the poverty line, etc.. which suggests to me that we're doing it wrong.
      So yes. I prefer the government handle it, just like they do in every other industrialized nation where it obviously works much better than here.
      • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1"Except that we're the only industrialized nation that works like this."

        As far as I know, there isn't a single industrialized nation that doesn't understand the concept of money, but you've obviously done your research.
        • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Privatized medacine. This is about pharma, not capitalism in general.
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1"Publicized medicine" or whatever you want to call it is nevertheless based on finances. Money is involved, whether in the US or Europe or Asia, and that's not going to change.
        • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3It's called "Socialized Medicine" and yes it's run on money but not by private interests. That's the key benefit that seems to make everything work so much closer to the way its suppose to.
        • NanoStuff, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1By socialized medicine are you suggesting government funded pharmaceutical R&D is a good idea, or just government subsidized costs are a good idea?
        • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Well, since I don't personally have experience with these models, I couldn't say. But I would simply suggest we emulate the proven aspects of the various socialized systems currently in use by the other nations of the world.
  • dlm85, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2This has been going on for years. Consumers are paying a high price for most prescriptions even with health insurance. This should be addressed more aggressively during the US Presidential election. Who cares what some loud mouth preacher says, who wears a flag pin, or any other stupid issue? Does the media and politicians think the average US citizen is not smart enough to talk about real issues and solutions?
  • AROERS, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Need to add an OBVIOUS tag to digg
    I have not popped a pill of any kind in over 5 years and rarely get sick/hurt anymore.
  • tiedyeman, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2The pharmaceutical industry spends more on marketing than they do on R&D.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08010 ...
  • InfamousAtheist, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1One could make a load of cash learning to say something like "Side effects include heartburn, anal rash, triple-headed offspring, and loss of bowel control" REALLY fast. You know they're paying for that kind of skill.
  • BeardedRooster, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0This ties in nicely with yestedays story about how BigPharma wants to outlaw herbal use and cultivation in Canada (and then Amerika) too.

    Its not about healing, its about money. They just need you to believe in the healing properties to buy.
  • electrichead, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You know those three laws of robotics from Asimov? Why are we afraid of Robots doing what corporations are doing now? Why don't we integrate those laws into corporations?
  • 360news, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1 I think Bigpharma is marketing to hypocondriacs.
  • elliotys, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I think this is important for every person to know, but lets not get carried away. Or at least I hope people aren't blaming the scientist and chemists that are trying to make a contribution. This is purely the business side of the pharmaceutical company, pushing these questionable practices.
    People need to realize the challenges of receptor-based drug design (most drugs act via receptors). The various classes of receptors throughout your body contain an amazing degree of homology. This makes it very difficult to design a drug that will only effect one set of receptors, and very difficult to tell what side effects may arise from the therapy. Nature is very precise in it's design, and we have yet to reach this level of precision, and it's nobody's fault.
    Furthermore, I do not think advertising to consumers is necessarily a bad thing. Ideally it should educate the consumers to some extent about what drugs are out there, and it at least gets them to ask questions and to become more involved in their own healthcare. It is the doctors job to decide whether or not a specific drug is appropriate for that patient, and hopefully they are picking the drugs for the right reasons.
  • KoolHow, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Pharmaceutical companies are big corporations only in it for the money. In today's economic system they are forced to go for profits in any legal way that they can. They are not here to help us. They tell us that we need drugs for things that we never thought about before. They try to convince us that we have symptoms that need treating and to ask our doctor to prescribe medicines for us to treat those symptoms. They continually roll in profits when we continually buy their drugs. They are drug pushers in the most insidious sense. They want us to be hooked on their products so that we continually come back for more. There is no 'health' involved in these transactions, only treating symptoms. For us to really get well, we need to look at the whole picture of what makes us and keeps us healthy and not just jump to treat symptoms with drugs. Sure the pharmaceutical companies make things that do help us and that is why we need companies for that purpose. But that purpose is limited and the use of their products should be based upon the advice of a competent medical professional. And those medical professionals should be prohibited from receiving any kind of perks for prescribing company products.
  • timmyd, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Why isn't anybody blaming the role of greedy and unethical doctors in this? They have a choice of whether or not to sell their integrity. Citizens generally trust doctors, whose profession is held in high regard. IMHO it's on par with clergy who molest altar boys.

  • sassip, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I don't think anyone is aksing for health care for "free" just that it be a little more honest and follow the "First, do no harm" principle that start the whole profession.
  • roberto_deneero, on 04/30/2008, -0/+11. Invent disease.
    2. Invent drug to sell to cure the invented disease.
    3. Hire MD's to do research finding your invented product more effective than a placebo in fighting the invented disease.
    4. Sell ads on TV and in magazines citing these studies.
    5. See the product through its lifecycle and repeat.
  • sheasie, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Keep US Pharma Out of AUSSIE!!!!!!
  • devoted, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1one of the things you 'dont' want to hear about...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.