It's also logical to think that the government should regulate the price of drugs, but even if that was the case, surely the variables in the price formula would be the number of patients and the severity of the condition being treated, not the mgs of active ingredient needed to treat the patient. As long as the same condition is being treated, wouldn't the hypothetical regulator pay the drug company the same amount, even if the dosage moved around?

The two companies who make that drug are...
- Pharmacyclics, a previously public company that was bought out for $21 billion (netting its CEO alone a few billion) in 2015 due to the success of this drug
- Janssen, a division of Johnson & Johnson, one of the most profitable companies in the world

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE R&D

And yet somehow they managed to survive when epi pens cost about 2/3rds less than they do now? What changed that they needed to do R&D on an existing drug so much. Pharma patents are being abused, if you don't see that you are fortunate to not need many meds.

I'm saying there should be a limit on the profit variable in the pricing formula.

When will big pharma catch a ****ing break?

Bobman's right.

Not about the implication that R&D costs is why pharma companies charge ungodly amounts for treatments

the main reason they invest in R&D is because they can charge lots of money for treatments.

Yeah. And the deal should prevent them from cheating, as they do constantly by stifling generics, price fixing and a hundred other scummy things they routinely do.

Random interesting thing found from the Twitters: Poland's election results (in 2010) viewed as a split between the former German Empire territory and former Russian territory



Orange = centrist party, blue = Poland's version of Trump

2015 elections not as drastic but still show a similar split

Mister we could use a man like Otto Von Bismarck again. Those were the daaaays.

Start with this...

https://www.madfientist.com/traditio...a-vs-roth-ira/

You would have to go 401k to IRA to Roth, I forgot that step.

Most people that end up doing this tax free work it out like this:

- During working years, max 401k and IRA or Roth, and HSA (if eligible)
- Later in working years (when salary is typically higher) in addition to maxing all the above also save into taxable brokerage account
- Retire early-ish, roll 401k to IRA, and delay collecting social security
- Live off taxable brokerage account while rolling from IRA to Roth and continue this for several years
- Money rolled into Roth has to stay there for 5 years and then can be withdrawn tax free

While doing the Roth rollovers, under current tax plan, if filing as married at least the first $24,000 of income is tax free (plus any other deductions you have). The next $19050 is taxed at 10%. From $19050 to $77,400 is 12%.

This means you could roll $24k and pay nothing. You could roll $101k and pay about 9% effective. Most of your life the money going into Roth would be taxed at 22% or higher so this is obviously better than going Roth up front.

Things can and will change over the next 30 years so don't get mired in details now. Make it your first priority to start maxing out your tax deferred saving options and worry about details like above when you get closer to retirement.

Instead of robbing banks I'm going to go where the money is and steal from you guys when I get older. Jbrochu, you better hide the silver when I'm couch serfing at your estate.

Sure? But the allegedly scummy thing that we're talking about isn't actually scummy at all.

The biggest outliers on the map in Central Poland are Warsaw and the largish city of Lodz.

Amendment to my above Poland post: actually the 2015 presidential election (as opposed to parliamentary) displays the exact same pattern

OK, it's scummy that they were charging as much as they were in the first place, and it's scummy that they have enough leverage to entitle themselves to the same amount of revenue even as demand for their product drops.

How do you propose regulating how much drug companies are allowed to charge for drugs under patent?

How much does this cost in Canada or the UK, and how do they do it?

I have no idea how much the drug costs in other countries

Well, I am not finding an exact price easily, but it does say that the NHS pays less. So let's do that.

did the NHS demand to pay 1/3 price for a dose when the recommended dose was updated to 1/3 of the original dose? Because all folks are saying is that price reduction is ridiculous for a drug under patent.

It's almost as easy to look that up as it is to post that. Canada, Italy, France, Germany, and the UK all set max prices for drugs.

Public Universities should probably do a bunch of this research, get the patents and then license them widely at low costs.

Drug patents could probably be shortened. Would cutting them to 10 years instead of 20 really change the behavior much of drug companies? Are they that farsighted?

.