Official 2004 State of the Union Address Thread

[Gil Hamilton]

Look on the White House homepage. Remember, that's whitehouse.gov. You'll get an entirely different version of the SoTU address on whitehouse.com, one where President Bush is played by a large breasted blonde woman.

[Darth Wong]

"the drug companies can make more money in the US than anywhere else, therefore they're not price-gouging in the US".

Your entire argument boils down to "the drug companies can make more money in the US than anywhere else, therefore they're price-gouging in the US." The problem is, you have no evidence whatsoever.

You're full of shit. If profit margins are huge, they can afford to lower prices. They do not do so because they don't have to; they have created a situation where they can keep prices far, far higher than their actual operating expenses warrant. You keep saying there's no evidence, but what evidence do you want? Their profit margins are a matter of public record, dumb-ass.

But like I said, it's your board. I concede.

Rev Prez

Again, you pretend the only reason to give up a stupid argument is to avoid making waves.

[Frank Hipper]

But like I said, it's your board. I concede.

Sissy.
If your argument was worth a damn, you wouldn't have to.
But you pulling this shit only shows what levels of dishonesty you're willing to employ to squirm out of a tough spot.

[revprez]

But like I said, it's your board. I concede.

Sissy.
If your argument was worth a damn, you wouldn't have to.

Is that the best you can do?

But you pulling this shit only shows what levels of dishonesty you're willing to employ to squirm out of a tough spot.

Go with God, my son.

Rev Prez

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you wanted to avoid "separate-but-equal", you could simply reclassify all marriage as "civil unions" and allow any two people to enter into one. And oh, how the fundies would howl.

That would actually be a good solution; eliminate the word "marriage" from law, and stop recognizing religious marriage in any legal sense whatsoever. Will that make the fundies happy?

I think I could live with that.

[Darth Wong]

Nice non-rebuttal, Prez. Once again, GIGANTIC PROFIT MARGINS MEAN THEY CAN AFFORD TO LOWER PRICES. This isn't rocket science.

[revprez]

You're full of shit.

Forgive me if I disagree.

If profit margins are huge, they can afford to lower prices.

That's a far cry from "if profit margins are huge, they can afford to lower their prices without undue risk to investment."

They do not do so because they don't have to; they have created a situation where they can keep prices far, far higher than their actual operating expenses warrant.

You've yet to prove this. Go ahead, make an argument.

You keep saying there's no evidence, but what evidence do you want? Their profit margins are a matter of public record, dumb-ass.

I want a risk analysis.

Again, you pretend the only reason to give up a stupid argument is to avoid making waves.

Well, like I said, if you want to continue I'm all for it. Give me a break, I'm not exactly sure how stupid people need to be in your eyes to get booted.

Rev Prez

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Nice non-rebuttal, Prez. Once again, GIGANTIC PROFIT MARGINS MEAN THEY CAN AFFORD TO LOWER PRICES. This isn't rocket science.

Let's pretend that it is. Walk me through it.

Rev Prez

[Frank Hipper]

But like I said, it's your board. I concede.

Sissy.
If your argument was worth a damn, you wouldn't have to.

Is that the best you can do?

You concede an argument that you've been fighting for pages, and give the pathetic excuse above for conceding , and THEN ask if that's the best I can do?
Piss on you, bubbby.

[revprez]

You concede an argument that you've been fighting for pages, and give the pathetic excuse above for conceding , and THEN ask if that's the best I can do?

Yes.

Piss on you, bubbby.

Okay Monty.

Rev Prez

[Durandal]

Nice non-rebuttal, Prez. Once again, GIGANTIC PROFIT MARGINS MEAN THEY CAN AFFORD TO LOWER PRICES. This isn't rocket science.

Let's pretend that it is. Walk me through it.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word "profit." I'll clarify.

In order to be successful, a company must make a product and price the product in such a manner that the total cost for manufacturing one product (hence forth referred to as a "unit") is met when a customer buys one. If it costs $5.00 to make a single unit, the company must sell the unit for at least $5.00, so that they do not lose money.

However, successful companies also want to make money, not just break even. Thus, the company could price a unit at $5.50, so that they gain $0.50 for every unit sold. If the company wishes to make more money, they price the item higher.

But there are other considerations aside from just manufacturing a product. The company must also pay for its employees' salaries, benefits, operating costs, et cetera. So all this must be factored into the pricing of products. A company must make a minimum amount of money in order to cover its operating costs. If they cannot meet the costs of running the company through the sale of their products, they must cut spending in order to bring the amount of money they must make lower in order to keep the company running.

If a company requires $5 million per year in operating costs to keep itself running, it must make $5 million in one year. If, through sales, the company actually makes $10 million in one year, they have exceeded the amount of money required to keep themselves going by $5 million. The difference in operating costs and total money made is known as profit.

If drug companies make massive amounts of profit by selling drugs for extremely high prices, that means that the money they make far exceeds the money required to keep the company alive. Thus, drug companies can obviously afford to price the drugs they sell lower while still making a profit and keeping the company running. Is this clear?

I can't believe I actually had to type that.

[revprez]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word "profit." I'll clarify.

You just wasted all that time avoiding the issue. Allow me to speed this up.

If drug companies make massive amounts of profit by selling drugs for extremely high prices, that means that the money they make far exceeds the money required to keep the company alive. Thus, drug companies can obviously afford to price the drugs they sell lower while still making a profit and keeping the company running. Is this clear?

Drug companies are financed by investors. Drug companies are very high risk. There business is so high risk that the profit margin is justified to ensure investor interest. This seems to be a point you and the others are ignoring. This isn't a chipmaker who can patent his product and then sell it without competition so long as their's a demand for it for seventeen years. This is an industry that can't sell a product for 14 years at minimum out of its patent duration because it is under approval and has only a one in five chance of actually seeing the $20 billion it dumps annually into development actually get a return. If they don't maintain high sales and profit margins, investors look for safer ground, which means pharmaceuticals look for ways to reduce their costs--like cutting pioneer drug expenditures back in favor of "me too alternatives" (in 1993 58% of the patented drugs produced were of this type).

The fact remains if you want current R&D spending to remain as it is, or to have cuts only in "me too" alternatives, then "price controls" are a great way to get the opposite effect.

I can't believe I actually had to type that.

I can't believe you actually missed the point.

Rev Prez

[Iceberg]

How did we get this jackass? I could have lived with McCain. Hell, in 2000, I would have VOTED for McCain.

What twisted joke of a universe do we live in, anyway?

[revprez]

How did we get this jackass? I could have lived with McCain. Hell, in 2000, I would have VOTED for McCain.

What twisted joke of a universe do we live in, anyway?

I voted for the jack ass. I'll vote for him again.

Rev Prez

[Iceberg]

How did we get this jackass? I could have lived with McCain. Hell, in 2000, I would have VOTED for McCain.

What twisted joke of a universe do we live in, anyway?

I voted for the jack ass. I'll vote for him again.

Rev Prez

That says a lot about you, really.

[revprez]

That says a lot about you, really.

Okay, Icepop.

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

Drug companies are very high risk.

Prove it. They are by far the most profitable corporations in America. Obviously, the risk factor has already been taken care of, and then some. As usual, you still don't get it; GIGANTIC PROFIT MARGINS MEAN THEY CAN AFFORD TO LOWER PRICES.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Drug companies can exploit the gullible too.

Antibiotics, for instance, are often prescribed by doctors to shut people up who cause more harm to themselves via worrying over the most tame of infections which can lead to immunosuppressive effects leading to further infection. This of course means more drugs used meaning more money.

Certain other drugs are cleared for OTC (Over The Counter) sale if they are seen to be safe enough for the Average Joe to use.

Lemsip is another favourite. It's simply an analgesic like paracetamol, sugar and flavouring. It's made by the largest pharmaceutical company in the world (GSK) and still rakes in the profits at winter even if you'd be better sucking a lemon and taking paracetamol tablets for a third of the price.

Day and Night Nurse are the same, only Day Nurse has less drowsy effects because it contains less alcohol. May as well just drink your favourite beverage instead for the same effects. Sugar is also a good "comfort" agent.

In short, I hope to work for GSK and sample these lovely turnovers they make from those that still believe we can cure viruses (we can’t, but we can always exploit that nice niche of unknowing people for a quick buck). Drug companies are second only to arms companies in this safety of investment, I'd say.

[revprez]

Prove it.

I already have, my friend. I think you can acknowledge that now.

They are by far the most profitable corporations in America. Obviously, the risk factor has already been taken care of, and then some.

Really? How has it been taken care of, and then some?

As usual, you still don't get it; GIGANTIC PROFIT MARGINS MEAN THEY CAN AFFORD TO LOWER PRICES.

And gigantic risks require gigantic profit margins, as I'm sure we both agree.

Rev Prez

[Iceberg]

And gigantic risks require gigantic profit margins, as I'm sure we both agree.

What gigantic risks!? The risk that a drug might not make it past FDA approval? Maybe one in ten products started by ANY company ever makes it to the market. The FDA excuse is bullshit.

According to my finance professor, pharms are VERY desirable stocks to have because they pay out ridiculous dividends (well over two bucks a share) and because their risk to reward ratio is minimal compared to other stocks with comparable payouts. There's extremely little risk to pharmaceutical companies; people will always need medicine.

[revprez]

Drug companies can exploit the gullible too.

This should be rich.

Antibiotics, for instance, are often prescribed by doctors to shut people up who cause more harm to themselves via worrying over the most tame of infections which can lead to immunosuppressive effects leading to further infection. This of course means more drugs used meaning more money.

Really? How many people? How large a portion do these people consist of the consumer base?

Certain other drugs are cleared for OTC (Over The Counter) sale if they are seen to be safe enough for the Average Joe to use.

And?

Lemsip is another favourite. It's simply an analgesic like paracetamol, sugar and flavouring. It's made by the largest pharmaceutical company in the world (GSK) and still rakes in the profits at winter even if you'd be better sucking a lemon and taking paracetamol tablets for a third of the price.

Perhaps people don't like lemons. Either way, how much extra money is Glaxo making off of this allegedly improper use?

Day and Night Nurse are the same, only Day Nurse has less drowsy effects because it contains less alcohol. May as well just drink your favourite beverage instead for the same effects. Sugar is also a good "comfort" agent.

Are you saying alcohol is the only active ingredient?

In short, I hope to work for GSK and sample these lovely turnovers they make from those that still believe we can cure viruses (we can’t, but we can always exploit that nice niche of unknowing people for a quick buck).

I don't necessarily have a problem believing that European-based firms are lagging far behind their American-based counterparts, but Glaxo did claim last month that they have 20 "potential blockbuster drugs" that could capture large portions of the market in cancer treatment, heart disease, and diabetes. Even so, investors weren't sufficiently impressed to keep Glaxo shares from droping $0.20 in between the day of the announcement and today.

Drug companies are second only to arms companies in this safety of vestment, I'd say.

You could, but you'd be wrong.

For more on risk in pharmaceutical R&D:

Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against The Drug Industry’s R&D "Scare Card", the case made by pharm watchdog group Public Citizen

Pharmaceutical Industry R&D Costs:, the response from the pharms.

The OTA Report both sides are arguing over, specifically chapters 3 and 4 and the according appendices.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

What gigantic risks!? The risk that a drug might not make it past FDA approval? Maybe one in ten products started by ANY company ever makes it to the market. The FDA excuse is bullshit.

You've got evidence to back that up? First of all, it's one in 5000, and one and five that actually recoup. The average cost for each one of those one in five ranged in 1990 dollars anywhere between $108 and $259 million during the two study periods between 1993 and 1994. It's up around $359 to $500 million now. How many other industries assume that sort of cost for such a small chance of return?

According to my finance professor, pharms are VERY desirable stocks to have because they pay out ridiculous dividends (well over two bucks a share) and because their risk to reward ratio is minimal compared to other stocks with comparable payouts.

I had a different experience in 14.21J.

There's extremely little risk to pharmaceutical companies; people will always need medicine.

Now wait a minute. You just jumped from low risk/return trade offs for pharmaceuticals in a class of industries with "comparable pay outs." Pharms have pretty damned high pay outs, which track usually with high risk. You wanna walk me through this?

Rev Prez

[Durandal]

Revprez, you could be correct, in theory, but if the industry is as volatile and high-risk as you claim, we'd see drug companies reporting quarterly losses far more frequently than they actually are. They've got all the demand in the world, literally, and those companies are a veritable cartel. They've maintained sky-high profits (actually, the highest of any industry in existence) consistently. They can afford lower prices.

The only reason they charge so much in America is because we're the only government that allows them to get away with it. European drug companies must live with price ceilings in their principle markets, and they're still very profitable and have enough leftover for R&D.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This should be rich.

Really? How many people? How large a portion do these people consist of the consumer base?

A large proportion given antibiotic resistance in this day and age. The doctor is at fault as much as the consumer in every respect and the dwindling number of drugs capable of tackling the higher calibre bacterial infections shows that overuse or improper usage has taken its toll.

And?

And what? It was a statement to show the drug companies avidly try to get many drugs easily attainable without prescription.

Perhaps people don't like lemons. Either way, how much extra money is Glaxo making off of this allegedly improper use?

It’s not improper use, where the hell did you get that from? And if they didn’t like lemons, why are they buying Lemsip made from *gasp* lemons? As to the revenues brought in, a sizeable chunk given this is a leading brand “flu cure” during the winter months. It obviously doesn’t rake in as much in mid-summer.

Are you saying alcohol is the only active ingredient?

And the paracetamol. Yes, other than alcohol and the analgesic, there is nothing else there.

The first person to cure a viral infection with drugs will win a Nobel prize. But this just illustrates that there is actually NO benefit from some drugs. Zovirax is a drug used to combat the herpes simplex virus and it sells well, but the aciclivir active ingredient doesn’t stop the thing, just hamper infection rates. But not everyone knows that so a placebo effect can help in the long run as well you could say. If GSK did happen to make some miracle anti-viral drug next week, can you imagine how much cash they’d make? Look at Viagra. That alone made over $2.5B for Pfizer in the first year. That’s just one drug which now has many copies, but to have something even more revolutionary and actually aid medical science such as anti-virals, that’s a Holy Grail.

I don't necessarily have a problem believing that European-based firms are lagging far behind their American-based counterparts, but Glaxo did claim last month that they have 20 "potential blockbuster drugs" that could capture large portions of the market in cancer treatment, heart disease, and diabetes. Even so, investors weren't sufficiently impressed to keep Glaxo shares from droping $0.20 in between the day of the announcement and today.

You do know that two of the biggest drug companies, GSK and AstraZeneca are British and thus European?

Market fluctuations like that is nothing to be concerned about; 20c on the US market is hardly a turn for the worst.

You could, but you'd be wrong.

For more on risk in pharmaceutical R&D:

Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against The Drug Industry’s R&D "Scare Card", the case made by pharm watchdog group Public Citizen

Pharmaceutical Industry R&D Costs:, the response from the pharms.

The OTA Report both sides are arguing over, specifically chapters 3 and 4 and the according appendices.

Rev Prez

And far more potential profit and given the wide range of pharmaceutical companies recruiting every month in New Scientist across the globe, I’d have to say that the industry isn’t as risqué as you think it is. It is by all means a big market with major profits to be had. You accept these risks, quite frankly, if you’re investing and don’t expect risks then you’re an idiot.

For all the potential pay off, these risks don’t come as any surprise.

[Durandal]

And, by the way, if a company can't impress its investors by any means other than promising to charge excruciating amounts of money for their products because they have no price ceiling and know that people will pay, they hardly have my sympathies. That's reprehensible abuse of their position in the market, and if they dug themselves into a hole where they must charge up the ass for their products or investors will scatter because of that abuse, that's their internal problem.

They're fucking rich, so they can afford to hire some new investment recruiters and marketing people. Other companies entice investors by showing them that products are useful, needed and solve a problem, not by saying, "Oh, we'll just charge up the ass for it, don't worry."