What is Digg?12 Comments
- inactive, on 12/01/2008, -1/+21One number every American can take home: the pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research. It's not as if its a secret, or as if they deny it.
- GrandmaSheila, on 12/02/2008, -0/+10I love the TV ads for their latest "gifts" to the human race, especially when they start listing side effects like liver damage, heart attacks, strokes, impotence, gambling mania ( I swear!), and lymphoma!
Back in the day, "side effects" like this kept such drugs off the market. Now, it's OK! Because, you know, they need to sell their products to fund creation of more toxic ***** with which to poison the gullible, for top dollar. - MsLaurel, on 12/02/2008, -0/+81. So long as treating the symptoms is more profitable than actually curing the disease, no disease will be cured (unless it threatens the lives of the wealthy elite).
2. So long as poor populations yield low profits, because they can't pay the high prices, the poor will not receive the medicines that they need, and poor populations will continue to be breeding-pools for disease.
3. Stockholders and corporate executives in the health-care industry draw dividends and bonuses due to the prevalence of disease, pain and suffering. That is a conflict of interest with the health-care field that is supposed to exist to stop disease, pain and sufffering.
4. In other words, profiting from disease, pain and suffering is unethical and immoral.
5. If you take one of their drugs, the side-effects will drive you to taking other drugs. When the chemical(s) in your system makes you forgetful or physically weak, it will be time to check into the nursing-home. Then Medicaid gets all your property and assets as payment, and your spouse gets ZIP. - scottknick, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6About advertising: the whole point of requiring a prescription for a drug is to make certain you are taking a drug because a doctor feels it is necessary. Television advertising for prescription drugs is attempting to create a "pull through" demand in which laypeople ask doctors for drugs based on seeing a 60-second spot. That's why prescription drug advertising to consumers used to be considered unethical, and we need to return to that view. Outlawing consumer advertising of prescription drugs would put the job of determining if a drug is necessary back in the hands of doctors.
About profits: Nothing wrong with pharmaceutical companies making a profit. But unlike most other industries, big pharma:
1) Produces a product with inelastic demand. If you're on medication for diabetes or heart disease or high blood pressure or whatever, you're risking your life if you stop taking it just because it's getting more expensive.
2) Enjoys monopolies due to drug patent laws.
3) Makes so much money as the result of 1) and 2) that it has the resources to impact legislation that would regulate its operations or restrict its patents.
So the market for drugs is broken. Pharmaceutical profits skyrocket as fewer and fewer consumers are served. The market offers no motivation for drug companies to change this state of affairs; indeed, investors would punish any drug company that tried. This is why government _must_ step in and re-regulate the pharmaceutical industry. - MsLaurel, on 12/02/2008, -0/+51. So long as treating the symptoms is more profitable than actually curing the disease, no disease will be cured (unless it threatens the lives of the wealthy elite).
2. So long as poor populations yield low profits, because they can't pay the high prices, the poor will not receive the medicines that they need, and poor populations will continue to be breeding-pools for disease.
3. Stockholders and corporate executives in the health-care industry draw dividends and bonuses due to the prevalence of disease, pain and suffering. That is a conflict of interest with the health-care field that is supposed to exixt to stop disease, pain and sufffering.
4. In other words, profiting from disease, pain and suffering is unethical and immoral. - eastwood24, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5Don't you know, it is about maximizing profits? Think of the shareholders and the quarterly profit reports.
- NicoNicoNico, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5Because you can live without CDs or DVDs, but you can't without medicine.
- Linguo, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5I ***** hate Earth sometimes.
- hansk, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1The woman in that picture looks like she devours the souls of the young in order to keep her wretched ice cold heart still beating.
- dejanigma, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Yay capitalism
- SmelFactor, on 12/01/2008, -11/+1Well they do need to sell the products, in order to be able to fund the creation of more products and make a profit. They are running a business not a charity, and if they didn't need to spend that much on advertising to ensure a return on their investment then they wouldn't.
The anti piracy laws impede my access to cheaper cds and dvds all the time. Why is it that only pharma companies are painted as evil because they are trying to make a profit?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is