Hedge funder buys rights to drug used by AIDS patients and raises price from $13.50 to $750 per pill

also in CEO who raised price of old pill more than $700 calls journalist a ‘moron’ for asking why

Yes, the journalist is a moron. People need it like they need air. They will pay any price to get it. So charge accordingly. Aren't IP rights grand?

U forget it's a 60+y old drug...so some generic company will make IT & sell IT for $20-50!
;)

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78058&postid=1724071
This drug is the other option. As it is "lifesaving" and there is a single supplier prices can be jacked to obscene levels. Big Pharma can't do that because of publicity, so they sell the IP rights for 10 times what they should be worth to some little no morals jackal who can. Now as to why no one else enters the market, how much cash do you think it takes to get a production line FDA certified to make a specific drug? And we aren't talking a huge number of doses needed worldwide. Remember once there is competition the price will be back to $1/pill. At that price all the other suppliers already dropped out of the market. The jackal has his monopoly!

This is wall street running your medical care. A/K/A Obamacare! Just wait until the wall street bankers figure out how to "crash" medicine as they have the banks, stock market, real estate ....

---

This is wall street running your medical care. A/K/A Obamacare! Just wait until the wall street bankers figure out how to "crash" medicine as they have the banks, stock market, real estate ....

Yes. In the USA!

This is wall street running your medical care. A/K/A Obamacare! Just wait until the wall street bankers figure out how to "crash" medicine as they have the banks, stock market, real estate ....

Yes. In the USA!

Well, since all of big pharma is multi-national .....

This is wall street running your medical care. A/K/A Obamacare! Just wait until the wall street bankers figure out how to "crash" medicine as they have the banks, stock market, real estate ....

Yes. In the USA!

Well, since all of big pharma is multi-national .....

I know that. Two of them are using computer software of mine.
But Obamacare or Hillarycare are different to Wall Street.
That's the way most European countries have and its work.

Guy who is now Brutus, most of the rest of the world has figured it out and at a much lower cost and with better results that we have. Our economic model does not work well for certain things, the general health of the populace being one of them.

---

A runaway spendthrift government who will pay $1,000 for a military grade toilet seat or screwdriver will justify paying any price for a life saving drug to appear to be doing good. The people suffer and big bloat just keeps getting fatter. This is what happens when you mandate 'universal' health care with the insurance companies and government in charge. Theft, Fraud, Corruption, and Deceit are the real 'four horsemen' of the coming apocalypse.

No, thats pretty much an American problem. Other countries that have universal healthcare or mandated health insurance have much lower healthcare costs than in the US. And that has been the case for a long time, Americans have been paying comparatively a lot more than people in other countries.

not sure about that...'cause I pay 4000€ per year for a healthcare in Croatia!
:/

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

There is some interesting topic here, about a FREE GRID COMPUTING & how some scientists are too close to corporations:
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread_thread,38423
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

This is wall street running your medical care. A/K/A Obamacare! Just wait until the wall street bankers figure out how to "crash" medicine as they have the banks, stock market, real estate ....

Yes. In the USA!

Well, since all of big pharma is multi-national .....

I know that. Two of them are using computer software of mine.
But Obamacare or Hillarycare are different to Wall Street.
That's the way most European countries have and its work.

Negative.
Who'es making The Money under Obama Care?
Obama Care is Crony Capitalism.

Tax them and let that money go to healtcare:)

I wonder why the US let those companies cashing in.
On the other hand US people doesn't seem to care.
Only 235,248 voted in the last election.

Correct.

This is why I (an accused Right Winger) is for a 'Single Payer' System.

However... One BIG Problem.

Since our Government is absolutely Incompetent and Corrupt:

What manages this 'System'?

The fact is that a private business would be just as incompetent and more corrupt as the government. Except that when a private business is 'corrupt' its legal because its their profit motive and deemed business as usual.

And as for incompetence, such a system would be so large and complex that no human organization on the planet would be able to do it with anything better than incompetence.

Perhaps leave it to a super computer? That would be impartial, efficient, blind to any kind of profit motive and therefor unable to be corrupt. And if the NSA can build a supercomputer that monitors everyones internet traffic, then surely they can also build a supercomputer that manages a single payer health care system.

How about letting the individual manage his own system? How about letting "the collective" introduce market forces into the medical industry which will lead to fair prices for medical services?

Fair prices? What makes you think that the free market will introduce fair prices? The free market will introduce optimum prices, you know, where the supply and demand lines cross each other. There is absolutely no indication that where those lines cross, the price associated with that point is fair for anyone other than the people setting the price.

Do keep in mind, capitalism and the free market do not exist to serve the consumer, they exist solely to serve the capitalist and no one else. The only reason people think that it serves the consumer is because someone in 18th century Britain thought that it would be in the best interest of the capitalist to 'serve' the consumer. Well, in the case of healthcare, that is just not the case. Healthcare isn't a commodity like say cars or computers are, there is extremely limited choice and there exist a massive information disparity between the people selling the healthcare and the people buying it. A free and fair market is simply impossible in the case of healthcare, and pretending that it is possible is simply deluding yourself.

How about we do away with *free* healthcare? This *free* health care is going to bankrupt us and lead us to a currency reset at an accelerated rate.

Free healthcare might in the long run be cheaper for everyone. Under a single system with free healthcare, there are tremendous savings to be had from the economy of scale it would introduce. As the government or whatever agency the government puts in charge would have a major advantage when negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies. It can just get medicine for much lower prices. Furthermore, you would cut off a large of overhead costs. Rather than have dozens of insurance companies who all have well paid CEO's and their own overhead structures you would only have one large organization with its own overhead structure. Sure, that overhead would be larger than the overhead of one single insurance companies, but it would be far less than the overhead of all the insurance companies combined.

That also means that the amount of money people have to pay into the system is less on an individual basis. If everyone puts their money in one big account which then pays for all the sick people, you simply save more money than if you have people pay into several smaller accounts which then only pay for part of the sick people.

Finally a free healthcare system significantly relieves stress on the poorest in society, which gives them a little more breathing room, which has economic benefits in its own right. It also creates incentives for people to go to the doctor more often thus increasing the chance of catching an illness in its early stages when its still cheaper to cure.

Or is it that everybody who want's "single payer" is fine with the idea of being assigned a QALY score and allowing the "ruling class" to exempt themselves from it and take away value that could have been distributed to a few more people with lower QALY scores? (Not to mention the fact that some revenue originally collected to pay for a "single payer system" will not be used for medical purposes.)

You do realize that in a capitalist system when every healthcare provider has a profit motive, a lot more of the money you pay will not be used to pay for medical things? Not to mention all the overhead costs that are being duplicated because there are dozens of smaller insurance companies rather than one big organization.

What would be better? Some nameless, faceless bureaucrat making decisions about your health care (and his own--and he has control of the money)? Or *you* making choices about your own health care?

*You* making the choices all by yourself would only happen if you have multi million dollar bank account to pay for whatever procedure you like. The smaller your bank account, the less choice you have. And that btw, is true for every aspect in a capitalist society, less money always means less choice. Unless you can make healthcare as cheap as the McDonalds menu, for most people there won't be a lot of choice.

Also, remember how it was before Obamacare? Alright, it wasn't a faceless bureaucrat deciding over whether you get healthcare or not, it was someone working for the insurance company or the hospital, who calculated how much you would cost them and whether or not that would cut into their profit margins to much and based on that they told you whether you would get healthcare or not.

Tax them and let that money go to healtcare:)

Problem with that is designated taxation always gets hijacked by 'those who know better' and distributed to other government 'needs'. i.e. Social Security, that particular piggy bank has been raided so many times it is effectively bankrupt. That's why a 'Carbon Tax' is a fools idea. No amount of taxation(including at 100%) will have ANY effect on 'Global Warming/Climate Change', it's just another ploy to transfer wealth from the people, not to other people or a good cause, but to the taxing Governments to further their designs.

when a private business is 'corrupt' its legal because its their profit motive and deemed business as usual.

Incorrect, private business gets prosecuted for crimes daily, again, i.e. Volkswagen facing estimated fines of over $30 BILLION dollars (US) for their little software peccadillo to avoid emissions failures.

And as for incompetence, such a system would be so large and complex that no human organization on the planet would be able to do it with anything better than incompetence.

Which is why the US Federal Government cannot do the job. Big Bloat's only purpose for existence is to spend all it's resources, time, funds and energy justifying it's reason for existence. Proof is that Obummercare was touted by the great Liar In Chief(Obummer, not Herr Gruber), to reduce costs for each family by $2,500 a year(the liar's own words).

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Healthcare isn't a commodity like say cars or computers are.

Really?
Since Toyota's way of building cars became known 20 years ago, that philosophy has spread like wildfire. Now healthcare in our county councils are about to introduce "lean". But how is it going? Patients are hardly cars.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.op.se%2Fjamtland%2Fostersund%2Ftoyotas-modell-ska-satta-fart-pa-landstinget&edit-text=
We dont have any patients anymore.
They are called consumers instead:)

And as for incompetence, such a system would be so large and complex that no human organization on the planet would be able to do it with anything better than incompetence.

Which is why the US Federal Government cannot do the job. Big Bloat's only purpose for existence is to spend all it's resources, time, funds and energy justifying it's reason for existence. Proof is that Obummercare was touted by the great Liar In Chief(Obummer, not Herr Gruber), to reduce costs for each family by $2,500 a year(the liar's own words).

True.
In our country we have 21 counties with different healthcare "Landsting".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_councils_of_Sweden
And we are only 10 million people here!

Healthcare isn't a commodity like say cars or computers are.

Really?
Since Toyota's way of building cars became known 20 years ago, that philosophy has spread like wildfire. Now healthcare in our county councils are about to introduce "lean". But how is it going? Patients are hardly cars.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.op.se%2Fjamtland%2Fostersund%2Ftoyotas-modell-ska-satta-fart-pa-landstinget&edit-text=
We dont have any patients anymore.
They are called consumers instead:)

The Government, or Doctors appointed by Government (no difference) Deciding who is too old, sick, not contributing to society?
Therefore: Quick, and hopefully painless, premature death?

Here we have überdoctors taking care of that.
No kidding.

Incorrect, private business gets prosecuted for crimes daily, again, i.e. Volkswagen facing estimated fines of over $30 BILLION dollars (US) for their little software peccadillo to avoid emissions failures.

But what a private insurance company won't get fined or prosecuted for is denying their customers healthcare based on some flimsy excuse so they won't have to pay out. The basic premise of an insurance company is still that customers put more money in than the company has to pay out. Otherwise, they wouldn't make a profit. Now if a government official does that, it would be fraud and the government official would be prosecuted. Also, if a government official makes a backroom deal with someone, and accepts nice trips to expensive resorts and what not, that would also be fraud. But if the top of a private insurance company goes on a business trip to an expensive resort, thats all fine, and if they happen to make a nice deal with another company without following all kinds of public bidding procedures (or organizing them and then still going with whoever they had a backroom deal), that would also be fine.

Again, whats fraud and corruption when the government does it is business as usual when a private company does it.

What exactly is your solution to Corrupt and Incompetent Government.

Not some Theory. But a real and practical solution.

Told you, a super computer. Otherwise, there isn't a solution. Its just a choice between a corrupt and incompetent government, but which is accountable to the people, or a corrupt and incompetent private business, but which is only accountable to the board and shareholders and who has an incentive to screw customers over as much as possible.

Tax them and let that money go to healtcare:)

I wonder why the US let those companies cashing in.
On the other hand US people doesn't seem to care.
Only 235,248 voted in the last election.

Which election would that be? The last 'national' general election in the USA was the 2014 'midterm'.

Granted, the national turnout was a bit on the low side; midterms always are...

But, the total number of votes cast was 83,262,122... or 36.6% 'turnout'.

Even our smallest state (by land area -- Rhode Island) had 329,212 votes cast in that election.

http://www.electproject.org/2014

Yes, I know, it is not an official government link, but it is from a professor of political science at the University of Florida, and he DOES list official government source links for his data. I have no reason to doubt it.

So, I will repeat my question... Which election was it? If it was some local election somewhere in the USA, your figure of 235,248 could be a HIGH turnout if, for instance, there were only say 250,000 eligible voters in that local area. I have voted in some local elections where there were only around 1500 voters TOTAL in that local area.

Yes, voters in the USA do tend towards voter apathy. Yes, they do. For a number of reasons. Numerous elections (Local, State, Federal), Government corruption, The feeling that their vote does not matter... The list goes on and on. But quite a number of us (myself included) vote in every election possible. After all, if we DON'T vote, we don't have biatchin' rights about what a crap-hole the USA has turned into.

Back to the subject of the thread, 'price gouging by Big Pharma'...

As to the story from a number of posts back, the price hike on Daraprim/pyrimethamine. There are a number of reasons for it, and a number of factors that enable it.

Chief among the causes and a high-ranking enabling factor (both) is the US Federal Government's involvement in healthcare.

It costs Billions of $ to bring a new drug from initial research studies through final regulatory approval. Most drugs don't make it through the process. Either they don't work, or they are not safe, or a combination of the two. Big Pharma needs to spend a LOT of money on this research and regulatory approval to continue to bring new drugs to market, so they charge out the wazoo on those that do make it through.

The primary enabling factor (which Government shares with Insurance Companies) is that is isn't the patient that usually has to pay. Either it is all the people in the nation that pays (taxes to the Government) or it is those with insurance that pay (health insurance policy premiums). Both Taxes and Insurance premiums are seen somewhat as 'bottomless money pits'.

Since the doctor no longer has to look the patient in the eye and tell them 'yes we can save your life, but it will cost a LOT' but instead just sends a bill to the Government, an Insurance company, or both, there is precious little incentive to control costs.

Four years ago, in 2011, per capita spending on health care in the USA was about US$8,400.00 per year. It is undoubtedly significantly higher now, especially since the bulk of the ACA provisions have kicked in.

$8400 per person per year (in 2011). Oy!...

The primary objective in all of this is to make health care more affordable. But how?

Insurance companies keep their premiums they charge down by being selective in who and what they cover. If the insurance companies are forced to cover everything on everyone (as the ACA attempts to do), premiums are going to go a LOT higher.

If we go to a Government single-payer system, like many wish to do, Taxes are going to go a LOT higher.

We have been boxed into a corner and wedged in between a rock and a hard place. About the only way forward is to go to the single payer Government run system, with HUGE cost savings provisions (else the Government/Nation will be spent into bankruptcy). About the only cost-saving provisions that would work are gutting the IP laws and the contracts re: medical stuff, combined with restrictions on who can get what level of care. In other words, pretty much what we have now, combined with stopping pretty much any further progress.

Allow imports of drugs and medical devices from other nations? You can kiss a LOT of the research jobs in the US Pharma and medical device industries good bye.

The share of medical costs in this nation devoted to the medical care of the elderly is a lot greater than their share of the population. Are you ready to throw the elderly under the bus so to speak?

And how about all those with unhealthy lifestyles. You know, the fat, the sedentary, the needle-using drug abusers, the highly sexually promiscuous, the smokers, the alcohol-drinkers, etc... etc... etc...

How about those with occupational exposure to various hazardous substances... Shiat like asbestos, various organic solvents, etc... etc... etc...

How about those exposed to environmental hazards... Like, those living on land that used to be a lead smelter... weed killer use in the area... insecticide use in the area... etc... etc... etc...

Feel free to keep extending this list. You get my point?

Without some serious provisions to control costs, the cost of a totally government-run single-payer universal coverage health care system will bankrupt us as a nation.

And about all of these provisions to control costs will either damage the economy ('where did our jobs go?'), or limit care to entire classes of people ('I thought this was supposed to be a UNIVERSAL system, what do you mean that it won't pay for this? I have paid my taxes for YEARS, and this is the way you treat me?')...

Yes, health care in the USA is broken. Horribly broken...

But there is not really a quick and easy fix for everyone.

And as long as people insist that medical care is a RIGHT, and not just another good/service to be purchased by those that can afford it, it CAN NOT be fixed.

What exactly is your solution to Corrupt and Incompetent Government.

Not some Theory. But a real and practical solution.

Told you, a super computer.

Ah so, trade corrupt politicians for corrupt programmers! BRILLIANT!! :)

---

Tax them and let that money go to healtcare:)

I wonder why the US let those companies cashing in.
On the other hand US people doesn't seem to care.
Only 235,248 voted in the last election.

Which election would that be? The last 'national' general election in the USA was the 2014 'midterm'.

Sorry MajorKong:) I'm getting old.
It was 235,248 thousand that voted in 2012 with a turnout of 54.9%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections