I disagree with you, Mac, but I'll give you credit for a cogent argument.

I also disagree that the increasing drug costs are because of so-called research and development costs.

In 2002, the Families USA report, available at www.familiesusa.org, analyzed the spending, profits, and executive compensation in each of the U.S. drug companies that market the top 50 drugs prescribed to seniors. Companies included in the report are Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott Labs, Wyeth, Pharmacia, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, and Allergan.

Please allow me to present some of the findings:

1. Just as much of the cost of drugs comes from advertising designed to stimulate demand for profitable drugs like Viagra. Public interest for such drugs--relatively low, IMO.

2. Drugs costs are also driven up by drug companies making cosmetic changes to a current drug and reapplying for a patent in an attempt to keep generics off the market. Public interest? Little to none.

3. Drug companies aren't just "staying alive." They're making an absolute killing.

4. Public research is necessary to do the unprofitable research--because, by definition, companies like Pfizer are less likely to engage in risky ventures that don't promise a good return. Again, the cost isn't as staggeringly high because there aren't record profits being made, nor is there any advertising done. Just because there has been a understandable public backlash over government inefficiency in the last thirty years is no reason to embrace a rose-colored glasses scenario of drug companies and research.

5. There are many, many, goals for which the market is by far the superior choice to distribute goods and costs. Health care is NOT one of them. I agree with Mac that the drug industry per se does best with a mix of public and private, but I think, overall, his argument casts Pfizer in the best possible light without even mentioning the problems or drawbacks.

Of course, if the argument is that crazy Madison liberals want to get rid of private drug companies, then I'm with Mac. The fact, however, that a REPUBLICAN congress passed a prescription-drug benefit that will cost billions (note to conservatives--by any meaningful definition, Medicare faces a crisis long before Social Security), shows you that something else needs to be done to control costs other than light up a pipe and praise the free market.

COMMENT DELETED: Inappropriate language

The rest of the world uses cost controls to ensure that they only pay slightly more than the cost of production. The USA consumer pays most of the drug reseach cost for the whole world. Too bad nobody seems to think that's noble, that instead it's just a system of stupid consumers and greedy drug companies.

What the second person wrote was patently untrue. I coordinated the Wyeth presidents meeting and report and have done extensive freelance work for the drug industry.

More is spent on R&D, period. In certain periods, more is spent to recoup costs and as far as Wyeth, it looks like they spend more on marketing because they have many over the counter medicines and other products which are already mature in the market.

Sorry to tell you big-baby never had to work a real job in your life leftists out there, the big baddies aren't hiding in the closet. Things in corporate America are much more benign.

Mac, that was a fantastic opinion piece. Despite the rhetoric of much of the American Left these days, corporate leader's don't sit in smoke-filled rooms and look for ways to inflict evil on people. Simply because profit is the motivating factor in drug development, drug R&D in America outpaces the rest of the world. So while profit is the motivation, corporations must be allowed to secure a profit margin for the sake of not only their employees, but also the people who benefit from their work. I wonder how many cutting edge AIDS treatments come out of Canada.

By the way, that cigar makes you look very distinguished. Nothing like a good cigar!

Hey Mac - couple of things. I didn't really agree with some points of the article, though I do support R&D of drug companies (just not the huge amount they spend on ads). Your argument overall was pretty decent and free of the usual neo-con rhetoric I've come to expect. The only thing I didn't quite get was how your expansion on drug companies related to your class. Also, something that would have helped your article is how a lot of drug research is subsidized through universities or taken from academic research. This provides university jobs, funding for universities, etc, and this helps people get/keep jobs. I have to say, overall I'm surprised by the quality of this article - maybe you can get Baumgardner to start writing sensibly too, but I'm not expecting miracles.

What does this have to do with Women's Studies???

The fact remains that 28 million Americans are uninsured, and drugs are not affordable. The drug companies may come up with a cure for Parkinson's, but the majority of Americans will not be able to afford this incredible drug.

So, is the "better" bottom line that everyone can afford drugs, but the drugs won't do anything?

Our government really should subsidize those poor drug companies and insulate them from liability and competition.

Our government really should subsidize those poor drug companies and insulate them from liability and competition.

I hate when people post the same thing twice.

I hate when people post the same thing twice.

I applaud this article as for once this liberal town offers a minority view in this town. I would like to DISAGREE with what the author of one of the posts had to say about advertising/DTC vs. R & D costs. Simply put, you are way wrong! Here are my statistics to back it up:

-2002, $33.2 billion spent on R&D and $21 billion on promotion, of this $12 billion in the form of free samples, which millions of patients use as their form of prescription drug coverage.

-According to a Tufts University study, a new drug costs between $800-$1.2 billion dollars from the molecule to market.

-1 out of every 5,000 molecule tested ever reaches the market, how do you pay for the ones that never make it?

-It takes an average of 12-15 years to get a medication approved

-Only 30% of the meds approved generate enough revenue to recapture the expense of developing the medication (2002 IMS), and that is not taking into account the other 70% that never make it.

-How many new drugs have come out of Canada since the 1960's and their "cheaper drugs"? One.

-I don't know why Pfizer is being picked on, they spent $7.9 billion on R&D, nearly double the next closed company.

-Pfizer offers the most comprehensive patient assistance program in the world by offering EVERY uninsured patient between 25-50% of their meds.

-They just donated 160 million doses of an antibtiotic to Africa to help blindness and built a new hosptial in Africa to train MDs on how to treat AIDS,etc, so I would suggest staying away from this company.

-Lastly, I recently lost my father to cancer and he was able to remain alive for TWO additional years due to clinical trials for new cancer medications. So PLEASE don't tell me that these corporations are not some of the few hopes we have in chronic diseases. I could go on and on and on...

Sometimes a cigar ISN'T just a cigar.

I think this was an excellent piece and quite a relief to see at this school. I want to point out the other downfalls and dangers of buying drugs from Canada. First of all, you are not buying the drugs from the manufacturers (e.g. Pfizer, Merck, etc.), but from an unregulated, and likely fraudulent source. This system is unregulated and unsafe for customers to use. The reason drugs are cheaper for Canadains is because they have a public health care system. There is no private competition up there and the result is less-quality care, enormous wait times, inaccessibility to specialized treatments and so forth. The United States is the most advanced country when it comes to health care...... don't we all want to keep it this way?

Also, I agree with one of the postings, why pick on Pfizer? Yeah, they spend the most on R&D to benefit all of you! As far as marketing expenses go, every company needs to spend a portion of their earnings on marketing; it is a necessity that I hope even you non-business majors can understand.

Here is a link to a Pfizer website that lists all of their programs which aim at giving more Americans (both insured and uninsured) access to pharmaceuticals. http://www.pfizer.com/subsites/philanthropy/access/index.html.

Lastly, please stop this whole "greedy drug companies" thing..... it is a sad, uninformed argument.