What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
144 Comments
- prometheanspark, on 05/18/2008, -2/+23What we really need is a law banning the advertisement of prescription medicines. That will decimate their advertising spending and force them to use their profits for other things, like development.
If someone really has a problem with restless leg syndrome or some other ailment, they'll figure it out with the internet or bring it up with their doctor. - Dumbledorito, on 05/18/2008, -5/+23The lobbying issue aside, this is a stellar example of why private companies are not the only solution to problems where the public good is concerned. You need the government to fund less profitable research into vaccines, cures, and science that doesn't have an obvious immediate marketability. Private companies have little to no interest in diseases that affect large segments of the population that don't have a lot of disposable income, but whose continued ill health can impact the rest of society (i.e. via communicable disease, or even by degrading the work force, to take an unemotional view of it).
Left alone, the most we get from the PharmaCo's is changes to patent law to let them keep their drugs proprietary forever, and treatments for chronic life-long conditions that people with disposable income suffer from, like impotence, depression, etc. - beauley, on 05/18/2008, -6/+24The american people must wake up and not bury their head in the sand or we will find ourselves without freedom of choice in the way we maintain our health. We must each and everyone of us contact our congressmen and tell them to vote "for the people" of whom they were elected to protect.
- chase001, on 05/18/2008, -1/+18Ask your doctor if Big Pharma manipulation of our government is right for you.
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15Without all this lobbying I might still have restless legs!
- quiznos, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15I'm currently watching an online lecture about the pharmaceutical industry from a course I'm taking called Advertising as Social Communication. (It goes into the underworld of advertising and pop culture, taught by Sut Jhally. By far the best class I've taken so far. Google him, he'll open your eyes.) Here's some fun facts:
in the first three years of the 21st century there was a 50% rise in kids taking ADD meds. When Pfizer couldn't exclusively market Prozac, they changed the name and marketed it as a treatment for other 'disorders', now treating symptoms of PMS (they call it premenstrual dysphoric disorder). 78% of 'new' drugs that enter the market are 'Me-too' drugs, which are existing drugs renamed to treat 'new' symptoms. The federal government changed the guidelines of what is considered 'healthy' levels of cholesterol, effectively telling millions of people that they now need to take Lipitor for the rest of their lives.
I could go on, but the final is in three days and I should probably pay attention. - zephyr42, on 05/18/2008, -5/+19Pharmaceutical companies are one of the biggest problems in politics/government today.
- Infidelcastr0, on 05/18/2008, -2/+15It is not in the interest of Pharmaceuticals to cure anything that could be managed by the sustained use of multiple addictive drugs. Corporate lobbyists are the most evil disgusting human beings in the world, vote accordingly.
- spikeyone, on 05/18/2008, -5/+15Maybe because there isn't a cure, and there are no better options. Or would you rather pretend you're cured and symptom free while using the latest "alternative" remedy. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
- afruff23, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10You're pretty naive. You cannot do good with a system based on evil.
- sinurgy, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8I'd say it's a tie with their marketing department!
- maz2331, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8Way too many Americans are taking way too many prescriptions. There was a study that came out this past week that shows that roughly 51% of Americans are on long-term prescription drugs. That is insane, and shows people just wanting to pop a pill instead of eating right, getting some exercise and sleep, and basically living even semi-healthy lifestyles. Or, they are so "health obsessed" and scared that they'll take anything.
- niradg, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Much less. The governments of those countries negotiate drug prices directly, which makes prices much lower and profits much slimmer. The global pharmaceutical industry basically relies on the US for most of its profits.
- purpledoc, on 05/18/2008, -5/+11Did you fail out of grade 8 biology? Next time you get cellulitis or bacterial pneumonia please say no when you are offered antibiotics. Because obviously they don't cure you and only masks the symptoms. You will instead be "cured" by praying, taking herbs from plateaus of Tibet, or yoga.
I see a patient like you every few month of so. And each time I wonder why they are wasting my time. - TheMoniker, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7"A review of all antidepressant trials submitted to the US FDA from 1987 to 2004 has shown that around half of the trials failed to show any benefit over placebo. All but one of the successful trial results were published in scientific journals, while nearly all the unsuccessful trials were either not published or were presented in a misleadingly positive light (compared to the FDA's own evaluation of the data). This arose because whilst studies are required for medical approval, studies showing adverse findings are not necessarily required to be published or (if published) given similar prominence. As a result, while it appeared in the research literature that 94 percent of trials had positive outcomes, in the actual data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, only 51 percent did. This publication bias inflated the apparent statistical effect of every antidepressant studied, by between 11% and 69%."
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. (2008) Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. Jan 17;358(3):252-60
Please note that this isn't meant to be a flat condemnation of, "big pharma". - scotticus, on 05/18/2008, -3/+9When a company develops a cure for any disease, they'll gladly sell it because it gives them an edge over their competition. Companies who are actively selling HIV medications are simultaneously working on HIV vaccines... if they didn't want to sell a cure, why would they do that?
- 9bpm9, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Everybody doesn't know this already? I would think any moron who has taken a high school government class should know this, as long as their teacher wasn't also a moron.
- monsterette, on 05/18/2008, -4/+9Good read!...just be aware of what you take and why you're taking it....listen to your body.....
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7If you want old men to continue to get erections, this is what it takes.
- purpledoc, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5I'd like nothing better than seeing patients taking some time every other day and exercise a little. Every time I see a patient who has a BMI under 25 I'm pleasantly surprised.
- Ellipsys, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Are you implying that there's no benefit at all in herbal medicine? Surely, our man-made pharmaceuticals do work in many cases, but herbal variants are often effective as well. Take Yohcam (sp?), a prescription drug that was used to treat ED before Viagra and company were developed. Its simply the common supplement Yohimbe, that has been processed to extract the yohimbine extract. Also, as I'm sure you know the gold standard for malarial treatment was quinine for a long time, which IS a plant. Of course we can't forget about opiates either! There are certainly cases when a man-made drug is best, but to discount herbal medicine at all is not doing your patients any services. There's a reason why researchers are studying plant life in tropical regions around the world to look for new medicine.
- apetrie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6If what you say is true, why is it that we're better off where there is socialized medicine? Your argument does not make any sense to me. When keeping the people healthy saves the govt. money, that is what the govt. strives for. If the govt. is actually responsible for an answerable to its people like it should be, then when a lobbyists interest goes against the interest of the people, there is little incentive for the govt. to go along with them. Keeping people sick and dependent is not going to fly when the govt. pays the cost.
Making health care private to protect the interests of the people is ridiculous, it obvious does not work that way. Look at the state of your own system! To think you'd examine it and come to the conclusion that making it more corporate is the solution, well it boggles the mind. - RedStateRetard, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6Does anyone know how much they spend lobbying legislators in the EU, Canada?
- Apeezee, on 05/18/2008, -9/+14This is ***** retarded. Pharmaceutical companies have a RESPONSIBILITY to the shareholders to turn profit. BOTTOM LINE. If some people are too stupid to figure out of they actually need something or not, that's their problem. Big pharma is not the problem, millions of morons is the problem.
- goat2, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4and weed remains illegal
- scotticus, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5That's not completely true, dumble. There aren't many diseases that only affect only the poor, and for countries afflicted with some of these (like HIV or malaria), nations often negotiate pricing directly with drug companies to make the drugs accessible.
Most people outside of the business aren't aware of the full portfolio of most drug companies because only the ones like impotence, depression, pain, herpes, etc. (with huge markets) get direct to consumer marketing. Bacterial infections, cancer and the like don't get direct to consumer marketing because if you have one of those conditions, you're going to go to the doctor. - JohnGalt72, on 05/18/2008, -5/+9The answer, as is always the answer, is the free market.
To all you who want National "socialized" "free" "gov't" healthcare...I hope you will see who will be running it. We're half way there now with the HMO's and if you know your history, you will see the emergence of these big Pharma companies soon thereafter.
We send our money to Washington via taxes, and the lobbyists aren't far behind. - foofightrs777, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Or have random sex. See how pharmaceuticals are great!
"I don't understand anything," she said with decision, determined to preserve her incomprehension intact. "Nothing. Least of all," she continued in another tone "why you don't take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you'd be jolly. So jolly," - xadhominemx, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4That is absolutely *****. Innovative drugs cost between 500 million and 2 billion to produce. About 25 drugs requiring development on that scale are rolled out each year. 758 million is the total spent on Washington since 1998. Lobbying and marketing are nowhere near as pricey as drug development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development#Cost - HayString, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Pharmaceutical companies are really nothing more than drug dealers with a LOT of political pull.
- robert001, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3I read that a few times....
- Dr0x, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Very true, some of the over prescribing is a result of general practitioners bring able to prescribe psychotropic medications. They seem to use psychotropic meds as a first form of treatment for anyone who even acts like they may have some mental disorder. Don't get me wrong, there are many cases where medication is needed, but medication should normally be the last form of treatment rather than the first.
- smileydude, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5I marketed pharmaceuticals to M.D.s and specialists. A majority of them are egotistical fools devoid of any curiousity, medical schools don't teach street smarts. I respect my doctor and seek his OPINION, but realize the way he is educated and regulated, he may be wearing a set of blinders.
Why are so many of these miraculous drugs pulled off the market within the first 5 years for safety reasons alone? Take any new prescription drug, you are making yourself a guinea pig. - inactive, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Government is one of the biggest problems in politics/government today.
- spikeyone, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5What would you prefer them to do? When it's available in generic form, the profits vanish.
- mcquitty, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5Maybe we should tax the entertainment industry and use those windfall taxes to pay for our pharmaceuticals.
Let's see, take the top grossing films of last year. Let's just take the top movies from 2007, but only use the ones making over $50 million. If you total those films box office takes, you end up with 52 films making $6,805,536,576.
Yes, that is nearly 7 trillion dollars last year, alone.
So, why don't we take windfall profits for an entertainment industry and move those into taxes and use that to pay for all the pharma anyone needs?
Does Tom Cruise really need $20 million per film? Do the Rolling Stones need to have the highest grossing tour?
If profit is bad, take it from the entertainment industries first, because we don't NEED them.
When we can spend that much on entertainment, just one form of it, then why can't people pay for their drugs and healthcare? - Dr0x, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3what?
- Dumbledorito, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4"If some people are too stupid to figure out of they actually need something or not, that's their problem."
So I should go get a medical degree just in case?
On the off chance that I actually know what class of drug I need, it's become nigh impossible to google your way through all of the gray-market drug resellers, bogus websites, or studies sponsored by the companies making said drug. I suppose I could ask my doctor, but chances are s/he will recommend whatever the last salesman who bought him lunch and a junket is selling.
This may come as a total shock to you, but the profit motive doesn't result in what's in the customer's best interest. - LanceUppercut, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3This is the stupidest ***** I have ever read. Redistribute a person's wealth because they make what you feel is too much? I make less than you, I think you should pay for my gas. There, now do you see how ***** stupid socialism is? If you want this *****, move to Cuba.
Douchebag. - Dumbledorito, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Is that why you can't buy Claritin anymore?
- JohnGalt72, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3You have to look at it this way...because I think you're far removed from what I mean when I say "free market".
Why are there lobbyists? Why do they go to Washington?
The answer, of course, it because they want a seat at the table when policy is written...not to mention to get a piece of OUR tax money that we so willingly "give" them. Millions of our dollars are at this table, along with the chance for a power grab in the policy itself.
Now imagine Washington wasn't involved. Many things now happen, that you've more than likely never experienced. You get to keep your money first of all, and decide how you want to spend it, as opposed to someone deciding for you. Beyond that, now we have no corps going to Washington because there's no money, and Congress isn't setting policy. There is no FDA. Problem solved.
Now you're going to come at me with things like...."you trust those dirty corps to do right??!!!" and "NO FDA...WTF ARE TALKING ABOUT??!!!!". But what you must understand is that the natural incentive that competition, true competition, inspires is going to drive a company to produce the best, safest quality they can, or they'll be out of the market. Prices drop. Quality goes up. And when these companies do wrong and poison someone (which they already do) we let the courts take care of it. Penalties are very tough.
With Washington involved, as with any socialist programs, the well connected are rewarded, and by being rewarded not only with a hand in policy, but monetarily, we now have them with an unfair advantage in the marketplace, stifling competition. That is why you see 4 or 5 companies controlling certain markets. Not only are monopolies created by gov't, but now...as these companies are "protected", they have no incentive to increase quality, or lower price, or even be careful. In the health care case, they just bribe someone in the FDA to let the safety tests slide. And then they get Congress to enact laws that don't allow them to be sued for liability...
I could go on and on...I've typed more than I wanted anyway.
You've been taught wrong, my friend. You can't "fix" gov't. It's inherently unworthy. And that's been shown over and over in history. The bigger the gov't, the more the people are oppressed, and poor. The only way to "fix" gov't, is to repeal gov't and take care of ourselves. I assure you, we can do it. - FairDinkumMate, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Do you have data to support your statement that "The state of the U.S. system is not because it's privatized, but because there is too much government intervention in support of the big companies and against competition. Nationalizing healthcare will throw gasoline on the fire."
Because EVERY piece of data I've ever seen shows the same basic FACTS:
1-The US is the only developed Western nation without universal health care(of some degree)
2-The US spends MORE per person on health care than any other nation
3-The US has more people(proportionally) unable to access health care than any other developed Western nation(primarily due to point 1)
So, based on FACTS, I would suggest that a fully privatised system that costs the country more per person & provides less coverage is in fact an inferior system.
That said, I agree that there is a place for private health insurance, however I believe it should be used to supplement rather than replace universal health care. Would that not be REAL CHOICE - the choice for citizens of the US to utilize basic health care coverage provided through the tax system & the choice to supplement that with private cover to speed up access to voluntary surgery & the like.
There are also some big negatives about universal health care. However, not really many that can't be overcome or protected against with the addition of supplementary private insurance. I honestly do not believe that most American citizens have received a fair & balanced review of the pros & cons of universal health care, primarily due to the corporate interests at play that are discussed in the above article. - ridium, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3If pharma wants to charge outrageous amounts for things like ED drugs that's fine. I doubt men are dieing because they can't get it up. I draw the line where people are having to run themselves into bankruptcy to pay for maintenance drugs for an illness that could be cured.
Drug companies are attempting to turn people into addicts. Why are they any different from big tobacco? If people quit smoking their life can improve. If they stop buying maintenance drugs, they get worse (or more likely, die). Not coming up with a cure because maintenance drugs are more profitable is just as appalling as saying cigarettes aren't addictive or harmful. - anaesthetica, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Your FACTS #1-3 do not necessarily speak to the level of privatization of the system. Those FACTS are true, and while the system is obviously not nationalized, that does not mean that the U.S. system is fully privatized.
It is a hybrid of private corporations, corporate welfare, government regulations and bureaucratic institutions, some government healthcare provision, a little government price setting, and some government intervention to raise barriers to competition.
Government intervention (as above) has created a system of corruption, where the revolving door between big pharma and insurance corporations and the government bureaucracies set up to regulate them, combined with lobbyist financial influence in Congress, has perverted the system into its current dysfunctional state. Giving the government more power is only going to increase the incentive for moneyed interests to buy influence within Congress and the government bureaucracies, further perverting the provision of healthcare and making it less accountable to individuals.
Instead of trying to fix the problem by increasing the factor that causes the problems (corrupt government intervention in support of fat cat lobbyists working for big corporations), we should reduce the amount of government intervention into healthcare, thereby reducing the payoffs for companies that want to buy protection in Congress and the bureaucracies. - inactive, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Lobbyists merely advocated congress regulate in their favor, not good but somewhat benign in itself.
Congress are the ones who implement these regulations using tax payer money to do so "in the name of public safefy". If one tries to get around these regulations, they could be put in jail or shot.
I'd say that makes congress (and/or that chain of force) worse. - nullcodes, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Pharmaceuticals have to spend a lot of money on marketing because of all the herbal crap and "holistic" crap that is being sold as cures without any scientific proof.
- indypunx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2As a future physician on digg I would like to correct you on one thing. Lowering the lipid definition of high cholesterol was made as a way to diagnose problems earlier and treat earlier. Cardiac problems caused by high cholesterol and high blood pressure are the top killers in older americans. Bigger than cancer, car accidents, you name it. Every study done has shown that managing cholesterol and BP has saved lives. Calling it a government conspiracy is a bit of a stretch when its helped countless people. Not saying I agree with all the direct consumer advertising (i think it should be banned) but the cholesterol thing is legit.
- azbmr, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3On the other hand, if you didn't have to give so much money to the federal government you could donate some of that money directly to labs and researchers working on the vaccines/cures you want discovered/created.
I'm just saying that the best way to go about things has been shown, time and time again, to be the one that grants individuals the most options along with their own ability to choose. -
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is