ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

The public option is in? Looks like democrats are planning their lame-duck strategy a wee-bit-early...

[MeDeFe]

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...

This is true. Not just in the USA, but worldwide. Absurdly long patents on pretty much anything that can be conceived of is a major reason for why new companies are effectively unable of gaining a foothold on the market, they're sued from here to kingdom come for infringing on other's "intellectual property" if they try. Meanwhile, the established players make use of patent pools to and divide the proverbial cake between themselves with only a token amount of bickering so as not to appear like they have a de facto monopoly to the casual observer.

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

[King Doctor]

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.

[MeDeFe]

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.

History would appear to disagree. Both the USA and the UK had introduced patents early on, but up until roughly 1980, continental Europe was the globally leading region of inventing and developing new drugs and medical products. France only introduced limited patents in 1966 and completely lifted the ban on patents in 1978. Switzerland allowed patents on processes in 1954 and on products in 1977. Pharmaceutical patents were only allowed in 1978 in Italy, which was the 5th largest producer of pharmaceuticals worldwide at that time.
Since then, the percentage of newly developed drugs has been dropping in the region compared against the rest of the world.

Patents as an incentive sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't take into account that much of research is derivative and builds on what's already extant. This leads to the perverse situation that a patent holder can keep a new innovation that is based on one of their older ones but made by someone else from entering the market until their patent runs out. By then they may have developed and patented a similar product themselves. And when there's a new development, it's not going to be released before the old patent runs out and the product or products protected by it need to be replaced. There is no good economical reason to pull something off the market and replace it before it's been milked completely.

[PLAYER57832]

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...

This is true. Not just in the USA, but worldwide. Absurdly long patents on pretty much anything that can be conceived of is a major reason for why new companies are effectively unable of gaining a foothold on the market, they're sued from here to kingdom come for infringing on other's "intellectual property" if they try. Meanwhile, the established players make use of patent pools to and divide the proverbial cake between themselves with only a token amount of bickering so as not to appear like they have a de facto monopoly to the casual observer.

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

In the U.S. this is made worse because the government does most of the really ground-breaking research, the fundamental stuff that spurs on the money-making ideas. HOWEVER, the give all those patents/information away to the companies that already hold the most patents in that particular area. So, basically,its like we taxpayers fund the research into Aspirin, making pills and perhaps even creating a sugar coating, but the companies are then allowed to put it all together, and take all the profits. They are ALSO, (as you noted) allowed to limit the use of this technology by others.

[PLAYER57832]

The public option is in? Looks like democrats are planning their lame-duck strategy a wee-bit-early...

Democrats are not liberals. They might be slightly more liberal than than Republicans, but that is all.

At any rate, one real solution is to have the US take hold of patents generated under their auspices, but have a set royalty rate. Something like 1/2% of the take would be plenty. Enough to give real and true "payback" for all the free research these companies currently get, but not enough to really hold up use of the patents.

[King Doctor]

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...

This is true. Not just in the USA, but worldwide. Absurdly long patents on pretty much anything that can be conceived of is a major reason for why new companies are effectively unable of gaining a foothold on the market, they're sued from here to kingdom come for infringing on other's "intellectual property" if they try. Meanwhile, the established players make use of patent pools to and divide the proverbial cake between themselves with only a token amount of bickering so as not to appear like they have a de facto monopoly to the casual observer.

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

In the U.S. this is made worse because the government does most of the really ground-breaking research, the fundamental stuff that spurs on the money-making ideas. HOWEVER, the give all those patents/information away to the companies that already hold the most patents in that particular area. So, basically,its like we taxpayers fund the research into Aspirin, making pills and perhaps even creating a sugar coating, but the companies are then allowed to put it all together, and take all the profits. They are ALSO, (as you noted) allowed to limit the use of this technology by others.

This is all fascinating material of which I had no previous knowledge. I intend to think it over while reconsidering my views on medical patenting (which, given that they were the only kind of patents that I was a keen supporter of in the first place, may cause me to radically shift my existing worldview).

[thegreekdog]

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.

History would appear to disagree. Both the USA and the UK had introduced patents early on, but up until roughly 1980, continental Europe was the globally leading region of inventing and developing new drugs and medical products. France only introduced limited patents in 1966 and completely lifted the ban on patents in 1978. Switzerland allowed patents on processes in 1954 and on products in 1977. Pharmaceutical patents were only allowed in 1978 in Italy, which was the 5th largest producer of pharmaceuticals worldwide at that time.
Since then, the percentage of newly developed drugs has been dropping in the region compared against the rest of the world.

Patents as an incentive sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't take into account that much of research is derivative and builds on what's already extant. This leads to the perverse situation that a patent holder can keep a new innovation that is based on one of their older ones but made by someone else from entering the market until their patent runs out. By then they may have developed and patented a similar product themselves. And when there's a new development, it's not going to be released before the old patent runs out and the product or products protected by it need to be replaced. There is no good economical reason to pull something off the market and replace it before it's been milked completely.

I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?

[Night Strike]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

[Woodruff]

I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?

Good questions. I have no idea.

[Trephining]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

While the denunciation poses what I believe is a strong symbolic move against the terrible health care legislation (PPACA), this particular move is a little counterproductive unless it also removes the "guaranteed-issue" aspect of the law.

When an insurer must accept every single person regardless of existing medical conditions, people can just wait until they are sick (or they are sick enough that their costs exceed the cost of health "insurance") and then purchase insurance because the insurer must accept them.

Such a guaranteed-issue provision is absolutely destructive to the insurance market unless it is coupled with a strong mandate.

The state should have either accepted both or struck down both.

[ViperOverLord]

Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.

But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.

History would appear to disagree. Both the USA and the UK had introduced patents early on, but up until roughly 1980, continental Europe was the globally leading region of inventing and developing new drugs and medical products. France only introduced limited patents in 1966 and completely lifted the ban on patents in 1978. Switzerland allowed patents on processes in 1954 and on products in 1977. Pharmaceutical patents were only allowed in 1978 in Italy, which was the 5th largest producer of pharmaceuticals worldwide at that time.
Since then, the percentage of newly developed drugs has been dropping in the region compared against the rest of the world.

Patents as an incentive sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't take into account that much of research is derivative and builds on what's already extant. This leads to the perverse situation that a patent holder can keep a new innovation that is based on one of their older ones but made by someone else from entering the market until their patent runs out. By then they may have developed and patented a similar product themselves. And when there's a new development, it's not going to be released before the old patent runs out and the product or products protected by it need to be replaced. There is no good economical reason to pull something off the market and replace it before it's been milked completely.

I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?

The WHO respects a country's drug patent for x amount of years. All the countries that are part of the UN (WHO is a branch of the UN) has to abide by the patents. This was an issue back in the 90's when Al Gore (VP and Clinton appointed delegate) threatened a trade embargo against SA because they were making their own cheaper drugs to combat the AIDS epidemic. In that case the WHO rules that the state of emergency justified the situation but otherwise countries must respect other country's patents for x amount of years.

[Phatscotty]

When does Universal Healthcare start?

[heavycola]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

w0000t! Nowe maybe all those poor people will hurry up and die instead of asking me for loose change!


PS it's 'bellwether'

[Phatscotty]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

w0000t! Nowe maybe all those poor people will hurry up and die instead of asking me for loose change!


PS it's 'bellwether'

Obama lied, Grandma died.

[isaiah40]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

Wait until NO-vember when the constitutional amendment goes up for voting to TOTALLY NULLIFY Obamacare!!

[spurgistan]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!

[bradleybadly]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!

Kinda reminds me of that meaningless Senate race in Massachusetts back in January.

[spurgistan]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!

Kinda reminds me of that meaningless Senate race in Massachusetts back in January.

No, no, it doesn't. Fine, I was wrong once. If Brown v Coakley had been a toothless non-binding referendum with very important and contested races on the Republican ticket and no cool Democratic initatives to draw out voters, then yeah, those would be comparable. Also, Missouri is a red-leaning swing state, whereas Massachusetts is dyed blue. Also, Missouri sucks.

[bradleybadly]

No, no, it doesn't. Fine, I was wrong once. If Brown v Coakley had been a toothless non-binding referendum with very important and contested races on the Republican ticket and no cool Democratic initatives to draw out voters, then yeah, those would be comparable. Also, Missouri is a red-leaning swing state, whereas Massachusetts is dyed blue. Also, Missouri sucks.

The point being that across the country, in one way or another, most people are voting for either referendums against Obamacare or candidates which specifically said they'd vote against it.

[Night Strike]

W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.

LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!

You must be talking about a different district from the one I live in, because the Senate Primary was a virtual deadlock for both Blunt and Carnahan.

[Phatscotty]

I understand it is possible to Repeal ObamaCare?

[Trephining]

Yes, it is absolutely possible. I think it is at least partially probable. More specifically, I think it is probably partial. The whole thing won't be repealed, but hopefully large pieces of it will be.

I would like sections 2718, 1102, and 1103 repealed.

[Phatscotty]

all we gotta do is flip congress? Michelle Bachmann will take care of the rest!

[Snorri1234]

I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?

Good questions. I have no idea.

From what I gathered the other countries have to abide by the patent from the country it comes from.


But it's not very important because countries (cept the US) can still bargain with a company about the price. As an answer to the last question: the prices of drugs depends on the country where they're available, not on the place the drugs were developed.