Experts fear shortage of unprofitable cancer drug.

[Laize]

Opportunity cost isn't the same as losses, though. Losing something you never had isn't the same as losing something you actually had.

Sure it is. Spending money you never had (Credit) works the same as spending money you don't have.

---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 08:46 AM ----------

So? The point stands. Getting even richer at the expense of human life and suffering.

And what would you do to remedy that? Force them to make the drug?

In the same way that a pirated song is a lost sale.

Funny. Except that there's no guarantee someone who pirates would have purchased. Apples and Oranges comparison.

[semaphore]

Funny. Except that there's no guarantee someone who pirates would have purchased. Apples and Oranges comparison.

There's no guarantees about future sales either.

And what would you do to remedy that? Force them to make the drug?

I would have the government manufacture necessary drugs and sell them at cost to the public healthcare system.

[Laize]

There's no guarantees about future sales either.

Yeah nice try. Cancer is pretty predictable. Until people stop having breast and colorectal cancer there's no reason to anticipate a slowdown in demand for a drug that treats those cancers. Yeah, a better drug could come out. That's entirely different and doesn't seem to be the case.

I would have the government manufacture necessary drugs and sell them at cost to the public healthcare system.

HAH. Government manufacture something. That's pretty rich. Especially since private companies can produce it for less even AFTER you factor in their profits.

[semaphore]

Yeah nice try. Cancer is pretty predictable.

Cancer is, perhaps. The market conditions for a particular drug for cancer isn't. This is truly apple and oranges.

HAH. Government manufacture something. That's pretty rich. Especially since private companies can produce it for less even AFTER you factor in their profits.

Too bad they don't want to produce it.

[Deleted]

I would have the government manufacture necessary drugs and sell them at cost to the public healthcare system.

Or open the patent from the moment the company who owns it says it's not worth their time anymore; if there is a profit to be made, there will be a generics company that will make it.

[Laize]

Cancer is, perhaps. The market conditions for a particular drug for cancer isn't. This is truly apple and oranges.

Yeah... you're really stretching. The market conditions for this drug are rock solid until a better one comes along. I've seen no indication of that being the case.

Too bad they don't want to produce it.

Still. Government isn't in the business of producing things. Government nationalization of any company has a pretty poor track record. And yes, that's even taking into account government sponsored enterprises. Unless you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are super success stories.

---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 09:08 AM ----------

Or open the patent from the moment the company who owns it says it's not worth their time anymore; if there is a profit to be made, there will be a generics company that will make it.

There are multiple companies making this drug. Or there used to be. Drug patents in the US last 10 years. This is a 60 year old drug.

[semaphore]

Yeah... you're really stretching. The market conditions for this drug are rock solid until a better one comes along. I've seen no indication of that being the case.

No, you're just changing the argument at every turn. What does the market conditions for this drug have to do with future sales of a more profitable drug that you want to pretend means these companies are losing money even as they are making profits?

Still. Government isn't in the business of producing things.

This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone share you view of what a government's business is.

[Laize]

No, you're just changing the argument at every turn. What does the market conditions for this drug have to do with future sales of a more profitable drug that you want to pretend means these companies are losing money even as they are making profits?

Oh, well then according to your astounding business acumen, Pfizer doesn't know what the market conditions are like for Advil in the future. Maybe they should manufacture something else in its place?

Get over your need to be right. It doesn't suit you when you're totally wrong.

This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone share you view of what a government's business is.

I don't care what you think their business is. The fact is that success rates for government-run businesses are laughably poor. Whether you look at Fannie/Freddie in America, any company where the Chinese government has a controlling stake or the Soviets... facts are facts.

[Deleted]

There are multiple companies making this drug. Or there used to be. Drug patents in the US last 10 years. This is a 60 year old drug.

Then it's either setting up public companies to synthetize abandoned drugs or have the public health systems offer a higher price for it.

---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 09:21 AM ----------

I don't care what you think their business is. The fact is that success rates for government-run businesses are laughably poor. Whether you look at Fannie/Freddie in America, any company where the Chinese government has a controlling stake or the Soviets... facts are facts.

The goal here is not to run a successful busines. It's to synthesize drugs.

[Laize]

Then it's either setting up public companies to synthetize abandoned drugs or have the public health systems offer a higher price for it.

The goal here is not to run a successful busines. It's to synthesize drugs.

I would think having private companies produce the drug(s) in question would be cheaper even if you offer them more money. Not sure why health services aren't.

[Deleted]

I would think having private companies produce the drug(s) in question would be cheaper even if you offer them more money. Not sure why health services aren't.

You have to keep in mind that abandoned drugs is an ongoing problem, and there's more of them all the time. So it's better if the solution is long-term.
And you'd think so, but it would be necessary to make the numbers first. As you noticed, it doesn't happen with health services, that the private choice is cheaper.

[Deleted]

Obviously. It's more profitable to treat a disease endlessly than it is to cure it. This doesn't even have to be a conspiracy theory, it's pretty much common sense coupled with extreme callousness. But then we're used to humanity, well those of us who don't live in Equestria.

[Baloneyz]

Apparently pharmaceutical manufacturers are slowing, even halting, production of fluorouracil; one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for the treatment of colorectal and breast cancer as well as being used in treatment of other cancers.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20121118-46239.html

It seems that it's unprofitable to manufacture and sell the drug. I'm wondering why pharma companies don't simply raise the prices but I have a feeling it has something to do with health care systems in Europe. No clue why they won't simply sell in the US.

The price of it is INSANELY high, and as there is a recession, the price of components, as well as the price to get that components to the lab to make the drug is getting higher, they can not possibly put the price to be above the border.

Also, the US did exactly what EU did with the drug, but couple of months ago.
Also, i heard rumors, US pharmacists are making their own drug against cancer, so if this one fails, their will take its place as the top drug against it.

[larrakeyah]

Obviously. It's more profitable to treat a disease endlessly than it is to cure it. This doesn't even have to be a conspiracy theory, it's pretty much common sense coupled with extreme callousness. But then we're used to humanity, well those of us who don't live in Equestria.

Then risk your money and set up your own drug company.

It's very easy to tell others what to do with their money lol.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Sure it is. Spending money you never had (Credit) works the same as spending money you don't have.

No it isn't. Credit is a debt, when you use a credit card, you become indebted to that person with their confidence that you will pay them. That doesn't mean that you actually can or will pay them. If you actually have that money and use it to make the purchase, the person actually has that money, there's no risk that you won't be able to give it to them because you already did. Even without the risk you still aren't paying them at the time of the purchase, you are paying them later.

Opportunity cost, even when the opportunity is guaranteed, is not the same as real cost.

[Catta]

Then risk your money and set up your own drug company.

It's very easy to tell others what to do with their money lol.

Its very hard to get into that market. Think about the market for food condiments. Now multiply that with a thousand.

[semaphore]

Oh, well then according to your astounding business acumen, Pfizer doesn't know what the market conditions are like for Advil in the future. Maybe they should manufacture something else in its place?

Now you're just strawmaning. You claimed that they are losing money. My argument is that talking about losing things you don't actually have is ridiculous a la whining about piracy. I was arguing precisely against abandoning a solid product and "manufacture something else". I don't know how you twisted that into "so they should do that".

I don't care what you think their business is. The fact is that success rates for government-run businesses are laughably poor. Whether you look at Fannie/Freddie in America, any company where the Chinese government has a controlling stake or the Soviets... facts are facts.

Or I could look at Petrobras, Emirates, SABIC, Sberbank, China Airlines (which is owned by the government of Taiwan, despite the name). You scoffed at China, but Chinese SoE's like China National Petroleum and China Mobile Sinopec are massive earners.

[Collegeguy]

Now you're just strawmaning. You claimed that they are losing money. My argument is that talking about losing things you don't actually have is ridiculous a la whining about piracy.

philosophical view, not an economic or realistic one.

[semaphore]

philosophical view, not an economic or realistic one.

Whether to provide treatment to cancer patients is not an economic view. It is possible to provide the drugs while turning a reasonable profit. It is therefore realistic to expect it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Maybe from your moral standpoint, it might be.

Businesses don't exist to lose money, though. They exist to make as much as they can.

This is actually not true. Businesses exist to provide for the wants and needs of people. The purpose of allowing them to turn profits is to give incentive for their creation.

Bingo. The quote you quoted is what is wrong with the entire modern free market. People ... *Ahem* businesses believe that their sole reason for existing is to make as much money as possible in as little time as possible with little consideration to the moral ramifications of their money making. They only follow rules, laws, and guidelines (put in to protect the interest of the people) to avoid fines and lost profits. See my signature.