9 ms·

Europe is able to do this because the US subsidizes their existence. 1. Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens

Europe is able to do this because the US subsidizes their existence. 1. Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs. 2. US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere. http://www.ibtimes.com/how-us-subsidizes-cheap-drugs-europe-2112662 http://www.ibtimes.com/how-us-subsidizes-cheap-drugs-europe-...

bauerd 9y ago
>US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere. You really think that? I mean come on
- derping69 9y ago
  US spends more on military than every Euro country combined. If they are attacked we have to defend them and they know it. They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > If they are attacked we have to defend them and they know it. They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked. If? In the entire history of NATO, the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once, and that in response to an attack on the US, and the non-US NATO contributions were not insignificant.
    - plantain 9y ago
      >the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once that's the point
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Sure, deterrence is the point of the treaty, but the claim upthread was about the significance of contributions that would be made in the event of an attack, a claim which contradicts the facts of the time when an attack resulting in the mutual defense provisions being invoked actually occurred.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked Many Europeans gave their lives in Afghanistan, responding to an attack on the U.S., and also in Iraq on a fools errand. The U.S. is the predominant power, but that doesn't make others insignificant.
  - deong 9y ago
    The fact that we spend too much by an order of magnitude or two doesn't mean the rest of the world is dependent on us. We don't spend this much because it's the only way to make the world safe. We spend this much because every Congressman has a some part of a defense contractor in their district and they'd rather build billion dollar boondoggles that the military leadership explicitly doesn't want than vote to close the local plant.
- sverige 9y ago
  I totally agree. The US should withdraw all its military personnel and equipment from Europe as quickly as feasible.
  - jubabuba 9y ago
    The US will never do that because then Russia will fill the power vacuum and that is something the US leadership will not tolerate
    - sjg007 9y ago
      Europe would not tolerate it either.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- gozur88 9y ago
  I wouldn't say the US defends "the world", but certainly countries like Germany and Japan are getting a pretty good deal from the US taxpayer.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    We did a good job taking care of their Yugoslavia problem while they just dragged their feet.
  - glenndebacker 9y ago
    Yeah seeing the refugee crisis, the uprising of ISIS, terrorist attacks that are indirectly related to a lot of American invasions we Europeans are getting definitely the long end of the stick. I find it really weird how over the ocean they are always pounding the self on the chest but they never think about how some of us need to deal with the consequences of the decisions they made in the past. You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place. Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet. America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      >You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place. Because they know you're a soft touch? How many 30 year old "Syrian children" from Pakistan and North Africa are you going to settle before you realize most of the people coming to Europe are coming for the free benefits and not because they're fleeing war? Shouldn't Syria be pretty much empty by now? Besides, there was a country which kept migrants bottled up in Africa until France and the UK decided to settle old scores. >Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You could buy from the Swedes, or the French, or even the Russians. And no, the JSF is not a "shoddy" product. It's just too expensive. Do you expect the US will bomb your country if you don't buy it? Don't buy it. >America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values. Nobody's claiming to be perfect. All I'm saying is we're wasting money protecting Europeans who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Europeans who refuse to spend more than a token amount on defense and then expect the US to "take the lead" whenever something bad happens. If it were up to me you'd be on your own.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Of course US does. We really need to acknowledge that. Don't believe it? Support US withdrawing from mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan and NATO.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >Support US withdrawing from mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan and NATO. I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it. I'm afraid there's a point at which America's overwhelming military, cultural and political dominance itself becomes a problem. Even if one can argue that, as hegemonies go, you could do worse, superpowers and their chess games are also holding the world back.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      > I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it. Why? If US does nothing for their security, then there's zero point of US spending money on it. It is like code - if the line is NOOP, then it should just go.
      - krapp 9y ago
        I don't believe the US does nothing for their security, certainly in the case of South Korea and Japan I think the US has been both an asset and a burden. I'm just not certain that what the US does is entirely necessary, meaning I don't think it's impossible for the world to go on without American interference and it shouldn't be a unilateral decision on the part of the US to simply opt out. If the US has treaty obligations that require its military engagement, then those need to be upheld, or else the US should try to renegotiate them. Otherwise, even if the security situation is made worse, the US should respect other countries' sovereignty if they want them gone.
    - 9y ago
justicezyx 9y ago
Defends against who and what... If US stops initiated wars, I bet the world can be a safer place already...
dv_dt 9y ago
Drug makers spend more in marketing than R&D, and I strongly suspect that most of their marketing dollars are spent in the US. So all we're really subsidising is more marketing to doctors via our high cost health care system. http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-putting-big-pharma-spending-in-perspective/ http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-puttin...
- amag 9y ago
  This was very apparent to me when recently on a visit in the US. There were a lot more TV commercials for different kinds of drugs than I'm used to. Ironically the required(?) list of potential side effects at the end of each ad often sounded worse than the condition the drug was supposed to treat in the first place.
- refurb 9y ago
  Drug makers spend more in marketing than R&D Absolutely untrue. It's amazing how this "fact" continues to be shared even when shown to be false.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/11/11/persuading-the-prescribers-pharmaceutical-industry-marketing-and-its-influence-on-physicians-and-patients http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheet...
  - aioprisan 9y ago
    A simple search would have saved you some embarrassment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.423fe237cf8f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
    - refurb 9y ago
      I knew you'd reference that study, it is really poorly done. Lumping all SG&A into "marketing" is wrong. SG&A is a catch all. It included things like staplers, secretaries, etc. it's not purely marketing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
athenot 9y ago
> Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs. You conveniently forget the European drug companies who develop drugs—and completely pay for the research—while negotiating price ceilings, and then export the same drug to the US, selling it 5x the price for pure profit (minus distribution/marketing/lobby costs). Disclaimer: my Dad managed research at one of those large European pharma companies.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  So they get (most of) their profit from the US market. How is that different from the point made in the message you reply to?
- derping69 9y ago
  You proved my point, if US did what Euro countries do to us, European pharma companies would lose their primary profit source. It's a wealth drain from US citizens to Europe.
  - alphaalpha101 9y ago
    Maybe you shouldn't choose to have such a terrible healthcare system then.
    - dang 9y ago
      I appreciate that you've moved toward civility in your comments on HN, but we need you to go further, because comments like this add no information and are just rude. Could you please just be scrupulously civil and respectful and only post comments that have good signal/noise ratio? Other users have reformed themselves this way (I'm one of them), so I'm sure you can, once you internalize the value of what we're shooting for here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It isn't primarily an ethical issue, if that helps; it's about trying to avoid degradation into boredom. Flame-style comments provoke worse, both quality- and quantity-wise.
landryraccoon 9y ago
The US chooses to do this though. The US can stop doing this anytime it wants to, nobody is forcing us to. If we don't like subsidizing Pharma companies maybe it should just stop doing it. It's not like Europe is asking us to. Similarly, I'm all for closing bases. If the US wants to close bases and cut military spending, who's stopping us?
- derping69 9y ago
  Russia invading Europe is what's stopping us.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Russia is part of Europe, Russia invading other countries in Europe is presumably a threat those countries would be highly motivated to address. The US keeps forces there and defence commitments because we're afraid of how Europe might act to protect itself if we weren't there, and because we want other countries in the region to feel inclined to accommodate US interests. (In both cases, “Finlandization” is an applicable concept.)
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    Russia has 144 million people and a GDP on par with Italy. The EU has 500 million people and - even without NATO and the UK - French nukes, with the ability to develop them in other countries if necessary. Russians aren't stupid, they would never attack us.
  - ahartmetz 9y ago
    Fun fact: Russia has never once invaded Central Europe. Central / West European countries have invaded Russia a few times. Russia does not need space or natural resources and it would be difficult to conquer its way to the soft factors it is missing. Given the strength of most European countries and their lack of natural resources, the chance of a large war being a net positive for Russia is small. Of course, sometimes there are internal reasons to start a war. Falklands and some US wars and, I think, most of Russia's small wars after the cold war come to mind.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere. The US doesn't “defend the world” by any stretch of the imagination. As for what it does commit to defending, well, other countries wouldn't let the US put the forces and facilities in their countries that the US wants there for global force protection of the US didn't also make a credible commitment to mutual defense; the US doesn't “defend the world” as a charitable service, it agrees to assist with the defence of select countries in order to contain others, secure access to key resources, and be in a position to project force to advance US interests anywhere in the world.
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  I can tell you're someone who has actually read the core objectives of branches of the military and has experience with their relationships with other countries. If you're reading this and would like a concrete example of what the guy above me means, take a look at the U.S. history in major foreign bases like Okinawa. Okinawa does not exist so we can defend Japan. It serves as an Asian FOB, helps contain North Korea / China, secures our access to important shipping routes, and of course "projects force". The "U.S. protects Europe and the rest of the world" is just some jingoist narrative with no factual basis.
mbroncano 9y ago
No, it obviously doesn't, unless of course you think the US manages to lead the world by acting against its own interests. In addition, and as far as agitprop goes, this particular argument begs the question: if this is the case, why are we doing it in the first place? This kind of juvenile ideology, claiming some pretended affront to some national interest to justify some weakly supported exceptionalism and eventually supremacism, is old as the world. As I don't want to invoke Godwin so early in the afternoon, I'll just mention this is also quite a popular theme amongst wife beaters. A significant segment of the US population is following a well known path for all of those acquantied with early 20th century European history. It's only that the US is still catching up with all that, being such a young nation, and not having been vaccinated against fascism like pretty much most of the old world. It's gonna get rough I'm afraid.

bauerd 9y ago

>US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere. You really think that? I mean come on

derping69 9y ago
US spends more on military than every Euro country combined. If they are attacked we have to defend them and they know it. They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If they are attacked we have to defend them and they know it. They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked. If? In the entire history of NATO, the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once, and that in response to an attack on the US, and the non-US NATO contributions were not insignificant.
  - plantain 9y ago
    >the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once that's the point
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Sure, deterrence is the point of the treaty, but the claim upthread was about the significance of contributions that would be made in the event of an attack, a claim which contradicts the facts of the time when an attack resulting in the mutual defense provisions being invoked actually occurred.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked Many Europeans gave their lives in Afghanistan, responding to an attack on the U.S., and also in Iraq on a fools errand. The U.S. is the predominant power, but that doesn't make others insignificant.
- deong 9y ago
  The fact that we spend too much by an order of magnitude or two doesn't mean the rest of the world is dependent on us. We don't spend this much because it's the only way to make the world safe. We spend this much because every Congressman has a some part of a defense contractor in their district and they'd rather build billion dollar boondoggles that the military leadership explicitly doesn't want than vote to close the local plant.
sverige 9y ago
I totally agree. The US should withdraw all its military personnel and equipment from Europe as quickly as feasible.
- jubabuba 9y ago
  The US will never do that because then Russia will fill the power vacuum and that is something the US leadership will not tolerate
  - sjg007 9y ago
    Europe would not tolerate it either.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
gozur88 9y ago
I wouldn't say the US defends "the world", but certainly countries like Germany and Japan are getting a pretty good deal from the US taxpayer.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  We did a good job taking care of their Yugoslavia problem while they just dragged their feet.
- glenndebacker 9y ago
  Yeah seeing the refugee crisis, the uprising of ISIS, terrorist attacks that are indirectly related to a lot of American invasions we Europeans are getting definitely the long end of the stick. I find it really weird how over the ocean they are always pounding the self on the chest but they never think about how some of us need to deal with the consequences of the decisions they made in the past. You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place. Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet. America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place. Because they know you're a soft touch? How many 30 year old "Syrian children" from Pakistan and North Africa are you going to settle before you realize most of the people coming to Europe are coming for the free benefits and not because they're fleeing war? Shouldn't Syria be pretty much empty by now? Besides, there was a country which kept migrants bottled up in Africa until France and the UK decided to settle old scores. >Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You could buy from the Swedes, or the French, or even the Russians. And no, the JSF is not a "shoddy" product. It's just too expensive. Do you expect the US will bomb your country if you don't buy it? Don't buy it. >America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values. Nobody's claiming to be perfect. All I'm saying is we're wasting money protecting Europeans who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Europeans who refuse to spend more than a token amount on defense and then expect the US to "take the lead" whenever something bad happens. If it were up to me you'd be on your own.
notyourday 9y ago
Of course US does. We really need to acknowledge that. Don't believe it? Support US withdrawing from mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan and NATO.
- krapp 9y ago
  >Support US withdrawing from mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan and NATO. I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it. I'm afraid there's a point at which America's overwhelming military, cultural and political dominance itself becomes a problem. Even if one can argue that, as hegemonies go, you could do worse, superpowers and their chess games are also holding the world back.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    > I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it. Why? If US does nothing for their security, then there's zero point of US spending money on it. It is like code - if the line is NOOP, then it should just go.
    - krapp 9y ago
      I don't believe the US does nothing for their security, certainly in the case of South Korea and Japan I think the US has been both an asset and a burden. I'm just not certain that what the US does is entirely necessary, meaning I don't think it's impossible for the world to go on without American interference and it shouldn't be a unilateral decision on the part of the US to simply opt out. If the US has treaty obligations that require its military engagement, then those need to be upheld, or else the US should try to renegotiate them. Otherwise, even if the security situation is made worse, the US should respect other countries' sovereignty if they want them gone.
  - 9y ago

justicezyx 9y ago

Defends against who and what... If US stops initiated wars, I bet the world can be a safer place already...

dv_dt 9y ago

Drug makers spend more in marketing than R&D, and I strongly suspect that most of their marketing dollars are spent in the US. So all we're really subsidising is more marketing to doctors via our high cost health care system. http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-putting-big-pharma-spending-in-perspective/ http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-puttin...

amag 9y ago
This was very apparent to me when recently on a visit in the US. There were a lot more TV commercials for different kinds of drugs than I'm used to. Ironically the required(?) list of potential side effects at the end of each ad often sounded worse than the condition the drug was supposed to treat in the first place.
refurb 9y ago
Drug makers spend more in marketing than R&D Absolutely untrue. It's amazing how this "fact" continues to be shared even when shown to be false.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/11/11/persuading-the-prescribers-pharmaceutical-industry-marketing-and-its-influence-on-physicians-and-patients http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheet...
- aioprisan 9y ago
  A simple search would have saved you some embarrassment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.423fe237cf8f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
  - refurb 9y ago
    I knew you'd reference that study, it is really poorly done. Lumping all SG&A into "marketing" is wrong. SG&A is a catch all. It included things like staplers, secretaries, etc. it's not purely marketing.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

athenot 9y ago

> Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs. You conveniently forget the European drug companies who develop drugs—and completely pay for the research—while negotiating price ceilings, and then export the same drug to the US, selling it 5x the price for pure profit (minus distribution/marketing/lobby costs). Disclaimer: my Dad managed research at one of those large European pharma companies.

kgwgk 9y ago
So they get (most of) their profit from the US market. How is that different from the point made in the message you reply to?
derping69 9y ago
You proved my point, if US did what Euro countries do to us, European pharma companies would lose their primary profit source. It's a wealth drain from US citizens to Europe.
- alphaalpha101 9y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't choose to have such a terrible healthcare system then.
  - dang 9y ago
    I appreciate that you've moved toward civility in your comments on HN, but we need you to go further, because comments like this add no information and are just rude. Could you please just be scrupulously civil and respectful and only post comments that have good signal/noise ratio? Other users have reformed themselves this way (I'm one of them), so I'm sure you can, once you internalize the value of what we're shooting for here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It isn't primarily an ethical issue, if that helps; it's about trying to avoid degradation into boredom. Flame-style comments provoke worse, both quality- and quantity-wise.

landryraccoon 9y ago

The US chooses to do this though. The US can stop doing this anytime it wants to, nobody is forcing us to. If we don't like subsidizing Pharma companies maybe it should just stop doing it. It's not like Europe is asking us to. Similarly, I'm all for closing bases. If the US wants to close bases and cut military spending, who's stopping us?

derping69 9y ago
Russia invading Europe is what's stopping us.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Russia is part of Europe, Russia invading other countries in Europe is presumably a threat those countries would be highly motivated to address. The US keeps forces there and defence commitments because we're afraid of how Europe might act to protect itself if we weren't there, and because we want other countries in the region to feel inclined to accommodate US interests. (In both cases, “Finlandization” is an applicable concept.)
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Russia has 144 million people and a GDP on par with Italy. The EU has 500 million people and - even without NATO and the UK - French nukes, with the ability to develop them in other countries if necessary. Russians aren't stupid, they would never attack us.
- ahartmetz 9y ago
  Fun fact: Russia has never once invaded Central Europe. Central / West European countries have invaded Russia a few times. Russia does not need space or natural resources and it would be difficult to conquer its way to the soft factors it is missing. Given the strength of most European countries and their lack of natural resources, the chance of a large war being a net positive for Russia is small. Of course, sometimes there are internal reasons to start a war. Falklands and some US wars and, I think, most of Russia's small wars after the cold war come to mind.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere. The US doesn't “defend the world” by any stretch of the imagination. As for what it does commit to defending, well, other countries wouldn't let the US put the forces and facilities in their countries that the US wants there for global force protection of the US didn't also make a credible commitment to mutual defense; the US doesn't “defend the world” as a charitable service, it agrees to assist with the defence of select countries in order to contain others, secure access to key resources, and be in a position to project force to advance US interests anywhere in the world.

spaceseaman 9y ago
I can tell you're someone who has actually read the core objectives of branches of the military and has experience with their relationships with other countries. If you're reading this and would like a concrete example of what the guy above me means, take a look at the U.S. history in major foreign bases like Okinawa. Okinawa does not exist so we can defend Japan. It serves as an Asian FOB, helps contain North Korea / China, secures our access to important shipping routes, and of course "projects force". The "U.S. protects Europe and the rest of the world" is just some jingoist narrative with no factual basis.

mbroncano 9y ago

No, it obviously doesn't, unless of course you think the US manages to lead the world by acting against its own interests. In addition, and as far as agitprop goes, this particular argument begs the question: if this is the case, why are we doing it in the first place? This kind of juvenile ideology, claiming some pretended affront to some national interest to justify some weakly supported exceptionalism and eventually supremacism, is old as the world. As I don't want to invoke Godwin so early in the afternoon, I'll just mention this is also quite a popular theme amongst wife beaters. A significant segment of the US population is following a well known path for all of those acquantied with early 20th century European history. It's only that the US is still catching up with all that, being such a young nation, and not having been vaccinated against fascism like pretty much most of the old world. It's gonna get rough I'm afraid.