[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Streaming Video on Linux

Michael Robinson robinsom at robinson-west.com
Sat Sep 4 20:26:38 PDT 2004

On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 19:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Michael Robinson <robinsom at robinson-west.com> writes:
> > Interesting theory, but how do you know that unless you're in drug
> > research?
> Amazing what you overhear and see if you've ever had a job as a
> security officer at a major research hospital.  Drug companies fleece
> Americans.
> > One cost limiting effort that could be legislated would
> > be a limit on the percentage of drug costs that go towards 
> > advertising.  We get far more advertising of drugs than we will
> > ever need, and we pay for that in the form of higher prescription
> > costs at the pharmacy.  Advertising could be limited to 22% of
> > the total cost of developing and marketing a drug.
> How about advertising could be limited to 0%?  Let the doctors do
> their jobs.
> > One of the advantages of getting high prices for drugs is being able
> > to do expensive research.
> No, think Prilosec ballpoint pens and Vioxx golf bags for doctors.

Assuming these are costly perks that don't give us new drugs,
why isn't there more about this on television and the radio?
Is there mass media corruption on this?  Personally, I 
wouldn't want a drug ad on a golf bag.  I'm tired of drug ads 
that would probably tip a truth meter in the false direction.  
It's nice when consumers have information, but drug ads hardly 
appear to be providing that.  It seems far more convenient to 
look up what you want to know online and I'd expect it to be 
cheaper for drug companies to advertise that way too.  

What are the problems with someone starting a drug research 
company and putting out new drugs without the level of 
advertising and doctor perks the current guys do? 

Are some of the same problems present in the pharmaceutical 
industry that are present in the computer software industry?  
If people ignored the drug ads, would they change or even 
stop?  What annoys me the most about drug ads is their 
length, it makes me think that the drug is that much more 
expensive.  Especially with so many of them being repeated 
during the same program at multiple commercial breaks, it 
has to be costing the drug maker a lot of money.

A tax on gifts given to doctors by drug companies to boost
their drugs would be a seemingly affective trick to reduce
the perks.  Providing samples of the drugs for doctors to try 
out seems completely reasonable to me though as long as 
the number of samples given out is limited enough to keep
the cost of a drug from rising substantially.  Making the
tax on superfluous gifts 30% of the cost of the gift,
that could change the perk policies of drug companies.
Unfortunately, it could also lead to another cost being 
passed on to consumers.  A new revenue source is generally
not a good thing for government entities either.

The amount of drug advertising bothers me a lot.  The few 
times I watch television now, most of the ads are for drugs.
How many people have had it with the ads?

More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list