Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,124

    How much money should big pharma make off a Vaccine developed with public funds?

    I listened to this and found it fascinating given the world I come from.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is...avirus-vaccine

    I believe that with something like this... something that is made with public money the amount of "Profit" drug companies can make off of public money should be limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,078
    Several layers of problems

    1.) Who is monitoring how they're spending the money they've already received?
    For example, I used to be an accountant for the state and I know right now they have to have special coding to use to tag payments they're making using money received from Covid/CARES Act revenue, and it's pretty meticulous on how that has to be done. Are they doing that with non-government entities? HIGHLY doubt it.

    2.) Since we can already safely assume whatever monitoring does get done will be overseen by people who will benefit directly and/or indirectly from their relationship with the pharma companies, we not only won't know how much those companies legitimately spend on vaccine development but won't know how much is being skimmed off or by who. In accounting there is something called separation of duties, designed to reduce the possibility of fraud...if the only people looking at transactions are also involved in the associated fraudulent activities, we many never really know it happened; the accounting equivalent of 'if a tree falls in a forest...'

    3.) As far as profit, it is also safe to assume those same people will allow for 'normal' profit to be taken...in other words, not only will we pay those companies to develop and manufacture these vaccines, we'll pay again to ensure they receive 'normal' profits....even tho they may have already gotten some (see #2)

    4.) Now, we have what 4 companies receiving federal money for this? One will be first to market...but likely we'll keep paying the others to continue as if there isn't one available.....with the same issues already mentioned going on there.

    Too many hands out in situations that should result in hands up
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,124
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Several layers of problems

    1.) Who is monitoring how they're spending the money they've already received?
    For example, I used to be an accountant for the state and I know right now they have to have special coding to use to tag payments they're making using money received from Covid/CARES Act revenue, and it's pretty meticulous on how that has to be done. Are they doing that with non-government entities? HIGHLY doubt it.

    2.) Since we can already safely assume whatever monitoring does get done will be overseen by people who will benefit directly and/or indirectly from their relationship with the pharma companies, we not only won't know how much those companies legitimately spend on vaccine development but won't know how much is being skimmed off or by who. In accounting there is something called separation of duties, designed to reduce the possibility of fraud...if the only people looking at transactions are also involved in the associated fraudulent activities, we many never really know it happened; the accounting equivalent of 'if a tree falls in a forest...'

    3.) As far as profit, it is also safe to assume those same people will allow for 'normal' profit to be taken...in other words, not only will we pay those companies to develop and manufacture these vaccines, we'll pay again to ensure they receive 'normal' profits....even tho they may have already gotten some (see #2)

    4.) Now, we have what 4 companies receiving federal money for this? One will be first to market...but likely we'll keep paying the others to continue as if there isn't one available.....with the same issues already mentioned going on there.

    Too many hands out in situations that should result in hands up
    Wow that is alot of interesting knowledge that I don't have.Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,078
    It would be similar/same with all those companies who were asked/directed/whatever to switch gears in their manufacturing facilities and start making PPE, ventilator parts, sanitizer, etc....only there it seems easier to justify ensuring they receive normal profits, given in most cases they were already losing normal revenue streams. Big pharma ain't losin' **** and they and their 'partners' in DC will make sure they never do.

    I've had a book/movie script about this kinda thing rolling in my head for years...another something I seem to never get to because I have this thing in the way called a job.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    50,380
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Several layers of problems

    1.) Who is monitoring how they're spending the money they've already received?
    For example, I used to be an accountant for the state and I know right now they have to have special coding to use to tag payments they're making using money received from Covid/CARES Act revenue, and it's pretty meticulous on how that has to be done. Are they doing that with non-government entities? HIGHLY doubt it.

    2.) Since we can already safely assume whatever monitoring does get done will be overseen by people who will benefit directly and/or indirectly from their relationship with the pharma companies, we not only won't know how much those companies legitimately spend on vaccine development but won't know how much is being skimmed off or by who. In accounting there is something called separation of duties, designed to reduce the possibility of fraud...if the only people looking at transactions are also involved in the associated fraudulent activities, we many never really know it happened; the accounting equivalent of 'if a tree falls in a forest...'

    3.) As far as profit, it is also safe to assume those same people will allow for 'normal' profit to be taken...in other words, not only will we pay those companies to develop and manufacture these vaccines, we'll pay again to ensure they receive 'normal' profits....even tho they may have already gotten some (see #2)

    4.) Now, we have what 4 companies receiving federal money for this? One will be first to market...but likely we'll keep paying the others to continue as if there isn't one available.....with the same issues already mentioned going on there.

    Too many hands out in situations that should result in hands up
    Wow that’s incredibly insightful.

    I feel like any ranting of what they should or shouldn’t do is just screaming into the void now. This is one of the businesses that owns this country and it’s politicians.

    Yes they’re funded with our taxes for this vaccine but through government contracts, a lot of companies are from weaponry to subsidizing menu items at fast food restaurants through government check off programs (which gives us heart disease, diabetes, cancer and then we need Pharma so they profit and round and round we go).

    This is at least of medical necessity. The issue we have again is there is no public healthcare system to distribute and no firm regulation on drug prices. There will be a 500% increase on the price over the value and they’ll profiteer off a pandemic and spend 30% of the profits on more congressional lobbying.

    There should be a cap on any vaccine. Flu, Covid, whatever. Vaccines are a public safety issue. They can go profit off dick pills and heart medication, but at least leave this sector alone. But that’s an empty wish.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,405
    The pharma companies will also argue that they should make the same money they would have made had they been developing drugs for themselves.

    Profit is okay, but it should be minimal.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The pharma companies will also argue that they should make the same money they would have made had they been developing drugs for themselves.

    Profit is okay, but it should be minimal.
    Those are my feelings.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The pharma companies will also argue that they should make the same money they would have made had they been developing drugs for themselves.

    Profit is okay, but it should be minimal.
    They will....they're wrong, but they will...however, I believe it will along the line of Medicare type profits...if so, at least a BIT less.

    What a lot of people don't realize with pharma, too, is the fact they have for decades routinely priced their NEW drug high enough to fund research on their NEXT drug. On top of that having deals with the various insurance companies to push them. For example, I have Type 2 Diabetes. The first few years since I was diagnosed, I took the weekly shot Trulicity. I paid $25/mo but I know the 'retail' price is around $900/mo. I have no idea how much the insurance company actually pays. But, earlier this year I changed jobs and my new insurance company prefers a different shot. Matters not to them that I've now had several months of things like blurred vision while my body transitions, it's just the company they have the best deal with. So, while MY cost didn't change much, the 'retail' price of Victoza is 'only' around $750/mo.

    Now, multiply scenarios like that hundreds of millions of times....and that doesn't even get into the Medicaid scenarios....and you start to see how big pharma has far too much power.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,078
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Wow that’s incredibly insightful.

    I feel like any ranting of what they should or shouldn’t do is just screaming into the void now. This is one of the businesses that owns this country and it’s politicians.

    Yes they’re funded with our taxes for this vaccine but through government contracts, a lot of companies are from weaponry to subsidizing menu items at fast food restaurants through government check off programs (which gives us heart disease, diabetes, cancer and then we need Pharma so they profit and round and round we go).

    This is at least of medical necessity. The issue we have again is there is no public healthcare system to distribute and no firm regulation on drug prices. There will be a 500% increase on the price over the value and they’ll profiteer off a pandemic and spend 30% of the profits on more congressional lobbying.

    There should be a cap on any vaccine. Flu, Covid, whatever. Vaccines are a public safety issue. They can go profit off dick pills and heart medication, but at least leave this sector alone. But that’s an empty wish.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    well I didn't mean to steal any of your fun!

    and yeah, some of the same things I mentioned as fraud possibilities for big pharma? PALES in comparison to some of the same things happening with defense contracts

    Again, separation of duties in accounting is a primary internal control requiring more than one person to complete portions of a task to prevent both fraud and error. However, if the only people completing a task AND the only people monitoring how the task is completed...are all 'in on it'...nobody is monitoring the monitors.

    There's a fun old movie called Remo Williams where a defense contractor is building a satellite, but keeps getting additional funds for 'cost overruns' even though they have never actually even really been building the satellite....millions of dollars received and the officials 'monitoring' it are getting kickbacks.....only to have a fire destroy their 'work'....millions more in insurance. The movie was fiction, that scenario unfortunately does play out.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,124
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    They will....they're wrong, but they will...however, I believe it will along the line of Medicare type profits...if so, at least a BIT less.

    What a lot of people don't realize with pharma, too, is the fact they have for decades routinely priced their NEW drug high enough to fund research on their NEXT drug. On top of that having deals with the various insurance companies to push them. For example, I have Type 2 Diabetes. The first few years since I was diagnosed, I took the weekly shot Trulicity. I paid $25/mo but I know the 'retail' price is around $900/mo. I have no idea how much the insurance company actually pays. But, earlier this year I changed jobs and my new insurance company prefers a different shot. Matters not to them that I've now had several months of things like blurred vision while my body transitions, it's just the company they have the best deal with. So, while MY cost didn't change much, the 'retail' price of Victoza is 'only' around $750/mo.

    Now, multiply scenarios like that hundreds of millions of times....and that doesn't even get into the Medicaid scenarios....and you start to see how big pharma has far too much power.
    single payer?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,078
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    single payer?
    no, it's actually Blue Cross

    I WAS on a self-supported system while with the state...
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    35,779
    The answer to how much profit should Pharma companies make for vaccines developed with public funds is less than they're about to.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,807
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The answer to how much profit should Pharma companies make for vaccines developed with public funds is less than they're about to.
    Or that they believed they are owed.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    34,434
    I dont mind if they profit, but whatever percentage of their funding is public money that percent of profit needs to go back into public tax money pool. So if half was public funded, then should get half (or maybe less) back as return on investment.

    Pharma still wins, but tax payers get to win too.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,078
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    I dont mind if they profit, but whatever percentage of their funding is public money that percent of profit needs to go back into public tax money pool. So if half was public funded, then should get half (or maybe less) back as return on investment.

    Pharma still wins, but tax payers get to win too.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    well, they have more control on setting the price....and the public/gov't is who they're selling to...so there's no giving money back, there's only how much do we agree to pay them...........and since it's a vaccine literally intended to save lives and more taxpayer money, they have the gov't by the short hairs
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •