Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Big Pharma and who is looking out for our best interests?
Democrats or Republicans?
Big Pharma contributed more than $10 million to Republican candidates in the 2006 elections–almost 70 percent of their total contributions. Pfizer gave 70 percent of its $1.3 million in donations to Republicans; GlaxoSmithKline, the second-biggest contributor, gave 70 percent of its $800,000 to Republicans.
Now, Wisconsin senators have taken the lead, along with several other lawmakers, in promoting legislation that would prohibit brand-name drug manufacturers from using payoff agreements to keep cheaper generic equivalents off the market.
A pair of appellate court rulings in 2005 overturned the Federal Trade Commission's bar on the payoffs. Since then, the FTC says, there have been at least 10 instances where a brand manufacturer made a deal to block or delay the entry into the market of a generic drug.
Sorry, Muse. I have inside information to back up what I ask. I know where the money is going. You either do not or prefer not to admit it.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Contributions aside, I also wonder how much profit they would like to make over the life of the drug. For example, if it takes them 100 million dollars to make the drug and over the course of say 10 years they make roughly 200 million a year in profit. Would that be adequate enough to compensate the company for creating a new drug and bringing it to market? Where do you draw the line for a free pass on making money exclusively on a product such as this? I want Big Pharma to make money but at the same time why should it be such an obvious license to abuse the advantage they would have over other companies in the market?
Also, why is there no generic insulin yet? That drug has existed since the 1930's. Eli Lilly did the initial purification and large scale production of insulin and have been making quite a bit of money from the sales of insulin. When you ask the companies that have exclusive reign over the production of insulin, they say that it is a biologic and it has be tested in clinical trials ALL OVER AGAIN just to make sure that generic insulin will work properly. At 85 dollars a bottle for pure insulin and over 40 million people with diabetes, a third of whom are insulin dependent. I think there is another reason they don't want the generic.
It is obvious that the government is helping Big Pharma with this Boulderdash!!!!
(Officially stepping off soap box and quietly retreating to my corner...)
- Overt OperativeLv 61 decade ago
I guess you don't own any drug company stock.
Research sucks up a great deal of drug company profits. Once a drug is finally approved, which takes several years, the patent protection in most cases isn't long enough to reearn the profits.
Rather than open drug up for generic production, it would serve better to extent the patents length so the drug company can spread profits over a longer period.
Generic drug companies do not bring new drugs into the market. They only copy existing drugs. It's the Big Pharmas that advance medicine. If they are not making money, they would be no new drug discoveries.
- 1 decade ago
I may be wrong in assuming that you are a liberal. How ever, if "Big Pharma" is not allowed to make a profit on a drug that they spend millions of dollars making and testing to make sure it works, why should they continue to stay in business?
As far as "Big Pharma" contributing, as you say, 70% of their total contributions to the Repub. candidates, Would you give your money to someone who is not going to help your company?
- Dr.OLv 51 decade ago
Independent JOE LIEBERMAN!!!!!Just Kidding.