 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should pharmaceutical companies be able to advertise prescription drugs? |
| Yes, they should be able to advertise anything they want. |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
| Only if it's a breakthrough medication that isn't a "take me for life" type |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No, they shouldn't be able to advertise prescription drugs of any kind. |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
| I don't think they should be able to advertise ANY drugs, prescription or not. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: Should pharmaceutical companies be able to advertise prescri |
 |
|
To me, the answer is a definite and absolute NO.
If doctors are the only ones able to prescribe the medications, doctors should be the ones who tell patients about the problems. Doctors shouldn't simply be drug salespeople.
In addition to turning doctors into salespeople, allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise to the degree they have been allows them to charge astronomical prices for their products and then falsely claim that it's to pay for the cost of the research. Sure, it costs a lot to research, but not THAT much, not enough to charge $200 a pill.
Over the counter medications they should be able to advertise to their heart's content.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that it's perfectly legitimate to have these companies market. The reason the medication is so expensive is not because of the free market, it's a lack of the free market. While we could provide a tax break for breakthroughs, we should not issue drug patents.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| debateman wrote: | | I think that it's perfectly legitimate to have these companies market. The reason the medication is so expensive is not because of the free market, it's a lack of the free market. While we could provide a tax break for breakthroughs, we should not issue drug patents. |
That's an interesting thought on the drug patents and tax breaks for breakthroughs....
Right now they spend about 30 billion dollars a year on research and development and 19 billion a year on advertising, or at least, as of 2001 that was the case--the numbers keep going up in those areas and the amount they spend is much higher than that.
I don't think doctors should be given perks for pushing a medication that's usually higher in price than other ones that have worked for years. I don't think doctors should be pummeled by drug companies with advertisements. If this country is going to take the stance it does against illegal drugs, and we're going to have prescription-only medication to begin with, it sort of defeats the purpose of being prescription only if it's advertised the same way as everything else. Doctors should be the ones making the diagnosis, not people making self-diagnosis based on commercials that paint the drugs in as beautiful of a light as possible--very luckily they have to describe the side effects, but that doesn't stop them from associating herpes medication with climbing mountains next to a beautiful streams and children laughing.
This country has an overmedicating problem. We need to really look at how dependent we are becoming on medications we really don't need. There's a point where the overabundance of these medications is going to decrease people's lifespans instead of increasing it. We have lots of prescription drugs of convenience, and many more of those come out than the ones that tackle the bigger problems.
Sorry for the rant.
I just think it's horrible how much money they spend on advertising and cramming their drugs down consumers AND doctor's throats--without that advertising, the drug costs could be 3/5 of what they are now, at least based on figures from 2001. If it was current, the number would probably be even more horrible.
Why should they be able to advertise prescription drugs as anything else is advertised? What about the side effects? What about the people who could have taken care of their problems other ways? Why should it be up to the drug companies to do this--shouldn't it be up to doctors who study things on their own accord and not crammed down their throats?
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It should be up to the doctors to prescribe, but there is nothing wrong with a patient requesting a certain medication. It does not mean it will be issued. And there is a bump in care because people think there is a pill to cure them. Both preventative screening and psychosomatic benefits abound.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| debateman wrote: | | It should be up to the doctors to prescribe, but there is nothing wrong with a patient requesting a certain medication. It does not mean it will be issued. And there is a bump in care because people think there is a pill to cure them. Both preventative screening and psychosomatic benefits abound. |
Do you think it's right that doctors get bombarded by the pharmaceutical companies and that they're given a bunch of perks for prescribing specific medications for certain problems? How about when they get perks for giving a speech about a medication? How about when the hospitals force the doctors to do those kinds of things so they can get the perks from the pharmaceutical companies?
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | debateman wrote: | | It should be up to the doctors to prescribe, but there is nothing wrong with a patient requesting a certain medication. It does not mean it will be issued. And there is a bump in care because people think there is a pill to cure them. Both preventative screening and psychosomatic benefits abound. |
Do you think it's right that doctors get bombarded by the pharmaceutical companies and that they're given a bunch of perks for prescribing specific medications for certain problems? How about when they get perks for giving a speech about a medication? How about when the hospitals force the doctors to do those kinds of things so they can get the perks from the pharmaceutical companies? |
I'm fine with the first two. I don't have a problem with that. So I get a perk for prescribing a product I was going to prescribe already? Nice. If I'm prescribing products for perks, without medical need, then I better have a helluva lot of malpractice insurance. If, I have seen the product work for my patients, I don't mind speaking about it. The point where it crosses the line is when the hospital administration forces the doctors to do this. They are guilty of negligence and party to malpractice.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| debateman wrote: | | Kizzume wrote: | | debateman wrote: | | It should be up to the doctors to prescribe, but there is nothing wrong with a patient requesting a certain medication. It does not mean it will be issued. And there is a bump in care because people think there is a pill to cure them. Both preventative screening and psychosomatic benefits abound. |
Do you think it's right that doctors get bombarded by the pharmaceutical companies and that they're given a bunch of perks for prescribing specific medications for certain problems? How about when they get perks for giving a speech about a medication? How about when the hospitals force the doctors to do those kinds of things so they can get the perks from the pharmaceutical companies? |
I'm fine with the first two. I don't have a problem with that. So I get a perk for prescribing a product I was going to prescribe already? Nice. If I'm prescribing products for perks, without medical need, then I better have a helluva lot of malpractice insurance. If, I have seen the product work for my patients, I don't mind speaking about it. The point where it crosses the line is when the hospital administration forces the doctors to do this. They are guilty of negligence and party to malpractice. |
I'm not fine with the first two at all. It PROMOTES corruption, pure and simple. Nothing should be in place to help stop that kind of corruption? This is why your plans worry me--they assume that people are GOOD instead of assuming that people are greedy bastards. To me, unless something is in place helping cut down on the bad effects of greed, greedy people will take advantage of it to the fullest extent.
I believe people are inherently bad, people are greedy. The true "nice guy" is a rarity, no matter how pleasant many people's dispositions are. Yeah, I'm definitely a pessimist about the human race, and that's one of the primary reasons why I believe so strongly in the things I do politically.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | debateman wrote: | | Kizzume wrote: | | debateman wrote: | | It should be up to the doctors to prescribe, but there is nothing wrong with a patient requesting a certain medication. It does not mean it will be issued. And there is a bump in care because people think there is a pill to cure them. Both preventative screening and psychosomatic benefits abound. |
Do you think it's right that doctors get bombarded by the pharmaceutical companies and that they're given a bunch of perks for prescribing specific medications for certain problems? How about when they get perks for giving a speech about a medication? How about when the hospitals force the doctors to do those kinds of things so they can get the perks from the pharmaceutical companies? |
I'm fine with the first two. I don't have a problem with that. So I get a perk for prescribing a product I was going to prescribe already? Nice. If I'm prescribing products for perks, without medical need, then I better have a helluva lot of malpractice insurance. If, I have seen the product work for my patients, I don't mind speaking about it. The point where it crosses the line is when the hospital administration forces the doctors to do this. They are guilty of negligence and party to malpractice. |
I'm not fine with the first two at all. It PROMOTES corruption, pure and simple. Nothing should be in place to help stop that kind of corruption? This is why your plans worry me--they assume that people are GOOD instead of assuming that people are greedy bastards. To me, unless something is in place helping cut down on the bad effects of greed, greedy people will take advantage of it to the fullest extent.
I believe people are inherently bad, people are greedy. The true "nice guy" is a rarity, no matter how pleasant many people's dispositions are. Yeah, I'm definitely a pessimist about the human race, and that's one of the primary reasons why I believe so strongly in the things I do politically. |
I believe that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Unlike you, I am not interested in over-regulation. Telling people what they can and cannot do is a fall further from our freedom. If I, as a doctor, choose to prescribe brand x over brand y is irrelevant as long as the prescription is medically called for. If it is discovered that it's not called for, then by all means, prosecute the piss out of them.
Having cookies in the house doesn't promote obesity. Eating all the cookies in the house does.
Your views are a traditional Adams type view that promotes a totalitarian state subjugating it's population with rules and regulations, essentially advocating a nanny state.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe in heavy regulations on businesses and almost no regulations on people's personal lives. I believe in a nanny state when it comes to businesses because it has been proven over and over again that businesses WILL screw people over if given the chance--it's the rule, not the exception to the rule.
The situation we're living in right now is what happens when we let businesses get away with too much: People dying on the waiting room floors of hospitals because they don't have insurance and people paying $200 a pill for life-saving medications (where people are spending upwards of $3,000 a month). It is a totally unacceptable situation, and no libertarian-style free-market ideals are going to be able to fix it--they'll only make the problem more extreme. If it was up to the corporations, doctors would ONLY be handing out the expensive medications and 99% of people would not qualify to get life-saving procedures.
I do NOT believe in a totally free market because the only thing the free market cares about is the free market where individuals are insignificant and corporate personhood is the name of the game--if it's good for corporations it's all good and if it's good for the consumers it's only good if it's also good for corporations. This is why, in my opinion, heavy regulations for businesses are absolutely necessary.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
| |
|
