4 ms·

Per wikipedia, wholesale for the drug is $1,850/month. I think I echo my prior comments on the US health and pharma system: why? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/

by tomrod 2y ago

Per wikipedia, wholesale for the drug is $1,850/month. I think I echo my prior comments on the US health and pharma system: why? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanomeline/trospium_chloride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanomeline/trospium_chloride

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
relativ575 2y ago
Why not? Software engineer in the US makes 100K or higher. Why? If you have reasons to believe the price is too high, present them?
slibhb 2y ago
1. If prices weren't this high then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. There's a reason most novel drugs come from the US! 2. The vast majority of drugs do not pan out and most fledging companies formed to study them fail 3. In the US, insurance mostly covers the cost of drugs 4. In 14-20 years, the drug will be turned into a generic and the prices will plummet
- guerrilla 2y ago
  > then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. This isn't true. The incentive is to help people. There are many people who are calable of doing that but can't do it afford to. We can just pay for their cost of living and research directly, cutting out the profit entirely.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Most doctors, nurses, and even scientists dont work for free. The incentive to help people is insufficient alone.
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      I acknowledged that in my comment, but you missed my point. They don't work for free because they can't in our current system. We can change that.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont think they would want to, not to the same degree.
        guerrilla 2y ago
        You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun. Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid. Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible. And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated. For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement. It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive. That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that. The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
- explodes 2y ago
  This drug was developed for $11M in the UK, bought by a company for 18B and is being sold at outrageous prices to cover that $18B. https://wellcome.org/news/new-treatment-for-schizophrenia-Cobenfy https://wellcome.org/news/new-treatment-for-schizophrenia-Co... Point 1 is wrong, point 2 doesn't apply, insurance is now bearing the borden for this capitalistic endeavor for point 3, and in 14-20 years many people who stand to gain a significant quality of life improvement from this drug are likely to be dead (point 4).

by tomrod 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

relativ575 2y ago

Why not? Software engineer in the US makes 100K or higher. Why? If you have reasons to believe the price is too high, present them?

slibhb 2y ago

1. If prices weren't this high then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. There's a reason most novel drugs come from the US! 2. The vast majority of drugs do not pan out and most fledging companies formed to study them fail 3. In the US, insurance mostly covers the cost of drugs 4. In 14-20 years, the drug will be turned into a generic and the prices will plummet

guerrilla 2y ago
> then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. This isn't true. The incentive is to help people. There are many people who are calable of doing that but can't do it afford to. We can just pay for their cost of living and research directly, cutting out the profit entirely.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Most doctors, nurses, and even scientists dont work for free. The incentive to help people is insufficient alone.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    I acknowledged that in my comment, but you missed my point. They don't work for free because they can't in our current system. We can change that.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I dont think they would want to, not to the same degree.
      - guerrilla 2y ago
        You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun. Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid. Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible. And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated. For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement. It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive. That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that. The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
explodes 2y ago
This drug was developed for $11M in the UK, bought by a company for 18B and is being sold at outrageous prices to cover that $18B. https://wellcome.org/news/new-treatment-for-schizophrenia-Cobenfy https://wellcome.org/news/new-treatment-for-schizophrenia-Co... Point 1 is wrong, point 2 doesn't apply, insurance is now bearing the borden for this capitalistic endeavor for point 3, and in 14-20 years many people who stand to gain a significant quality of life improvement from this drug are likely to be dead (point 4).