> dan, i'm confused i realize that it doesn't work that way in other > countries, but are you defending the way it works in america, or > denying that lobbies have enormous influence in congress?
Lobbies do have an influence in Congress, and changes that they oppose are often beneficial. However, getting rid of the lobbies does not get rid of the fundamentals of the problem. If you take the profitability out of drug development by private companies, you will stop private drug development. The history of the latter half of the twentieth century has shown the disadvantages of economies where the government owns/controls major > i realize there are costs in creating new drugs and marketing them. do > you believe there are instances when drugs are kept on the market when > the side effects can be dangerous and law suits contribute to the cost? That's part of it, but it the cost of eliminating any drug that might have a dangerous side effect is having no new drugs. The gauntlet that a drug has to run through before being approved is fairly formidable. Even then, when it is given to millions, after a careful study of thousands, side effects may be seen at levels too low to have observed in the study of thousands. > i have a friend who was given viagra when it was still being tested; > he had a massive heart attack. And, without large, statistically significant studies we won't know if that is a coincidence. > the fact there is little interest in new research on vaccines because > it doesn't pay, yet any new drug for ed is a great investment, make me > wonder if capitalism is the right incentive for health care? this is > what "sicko" points out... There are a couple of obvious conclusions that can be made here. First, people are more willing to spend money on ed than on vaccines. Second, this is a case where the uninformed public outcry on the danger of vaccines makes people very leery about spending money in this area. Third, wouldn't this be a perfect place for the more socialist countries than the US to show the disadvantages of capitalism by developing new vaccines through public spending? Since virtually all of the innovation first targets the US market, I think Gautam quoted here a site where 85% of the major innovations in the last 5 years were in the US and the other tended to target the US first. Isn't it logical to assume that, if the US market for this innovation dries up, that the source of the innovation would also. > i have no problem with cheap third world drugs flooding the market and > putting big pharm out of business. Well, it would put the small pharm out of business too. And, then, who would develop new drugs? I assume you favor governments? Historically, governments have had a much worse track record in technical innovation than private concerns. Planned economies tend to be ponderous and very bad at reacting to changes in demand, available possibilities, etc. They are particularly bad at innovation. perhaps governments would then > realize its responsibility is to promote research that saves rather > than kills people. Before I answer this, let me check my assumptions. I assume that you think that far too much is spent on the US military, and that a military with, say, the combined capacity of the EU would be adequate? Is that a good read of your position? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
