First, there is currently NO GENERIC PAXIL available in Canada or the US. There is current litigation over patents on both paxil and wellbutrin SR. The price may be less in canada,but there is no generic manufacturer, only GSK. I wouldn't expect a generic Paxil for at least 9-12 months even if GSK doesn't prevail in Chicago at the end of this month(very important case,pay attention to it!).
Also, can any GSK people tell me how the new BPH drug (avodart?) is doing?
GSK at this level is stable ,and a great covered call idea.
Finally, has Carlos sucked the marrow out of this board or what? Please give it a rest,and go back to helping "save" people,and "finding" their God(or whatever makes them happy).
The market feels to me like it has turned for the better;I may be early ,but get bullish here on most sectors that have been crushed (techs,biotech,pharma).
I have heard some truly idiotic reasoning, but this just beats all...
"I didn't say they couldn't reap reward. Its just that when you say full reward you have to put a limit on it because otherwise you got price gouging like we have today and we need to put a stop to it. There should be a limit."
You have to put a limit on it?? You MORON, have you ever HEARD of the free market? Have you ever studied Economics?
The MARKET will limit pricing. Price will be determined by the benefit of the product in comparison to other alternatives. If the product is overpriced, fewer will buy, because cheaper alternatives will prevail. This limits the amount the company makes. Therefore, the price is set at a level that will maximize revenue (price X volume). THIS IS THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WHO EVALUATE COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS AND THERAPIES BEFORE DETERMINING A PRICE. If Paxil is too expensive, ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO CHANGE TO PROZAC (which is available generically) or some other drug. Trust me, Thorazine is really cheap!!
"I got it now, lets not put a limit on it and let them charge $10.00 a pill for Paxil."
I realize you said this tongue-in-cheek, but it's one of the few intelligent things you've said! YES, they can charge whatever they damn well please!! And as long as the drug is worth it (compared to alternatives) THEY DESERVE IT!!
"That way they can get really rich and the share holders get really rich and then everybody will be rich. "
I have no problem with that. Capitalism WORKS.
"The only problem with that scenario, and we are not far from it with our current risk reward ratio, is that the people that need their product cant afford to buy it."
Nobody NEEDS their product to the exclusion of all others. There are ALWAYS alternatives. They may not be as good, but you get what you pay for!
"I shouldn't have to be rich to buy your product. It is not a want like a Lamborgini. It is a need."
Well, clearly, you do need something. An education in the Capitalist economic system would be a good start!!
I didn't say they couldn't reap reward. Its just that when you say full reward you have to put a limit on it because otherwise you got price gouging like we have today and we need to put a stop to it. There should be a limit.
I got it now, lets not put a limit on it and let them charge $10.00 a pill for Paxil. That way they can get really rich and the share holders get really rich and then everybody will be rich. The only problem with that scenario, and we are not far from it with our current risk reward ratio, is that the people that need their product cant afford to buy it.
I shouldn't have to be rich to buy your product. It is not a want like a Lamborgini. It is a need.
Oh, you free-marketeer you!!.
Okay, let's keep the government ALL the way out of it. No FDA deciding who can sell what or who can buy what. No rules keeping the consumer from buying from other countries. Just a free and open worldwide market where the consumer can buy whatever he wants, from wherever he wants, at whatever price he wants to pay. That's the ticket!!
When the fish were jumpin' and the cotton was high (back when people and companies were makin' decent money and health payments and health insurance were no problem), the attitude was "the cost be damned."
No more. Now the first wave of resentment is coming from seniors without coverage but the common wage earner is not far behind. The rabble will soon be at the gates and the politicians that have been pocketing drug money will soon be running for their jobs and maybe their lives.
A market that has been "inelastic" because of peoples' faith in the healthcare industry and political and regulatory support will become "elastic" as more and more people get to choose between food and medicine.
This whole industry (manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer) is likely to a great short over the next few years.
<<They should be better risk takers and make better decisions about future prospects for a potential new drug.>>
So, it's a one-sided risk. They don't get the full reward if their risk works out? But they get the pain if it doesn't? That's not a free market.
<< would not expect the government to let me just over inflate prices and mess with the supply and demand equation>>
You've got it backward. Keeping the government out of it, like in the US, allows the free market to dictate prices. Doing otherwise messes with the supply and demand equation. Your thinking belongs in countries like Canada where government "messes" with that equation all the time. Not many drugs being developed in Canada.
The cool thing about it is I didn't have to go to college for 6 years to sell drugs. no pharmacy degree is required for what I do. I found a hole in the system and I am going to make money.
What I am doing is in fact lagal at this time. That may change in the future as I read about a guy doing what I do in florida and they are trying to shut him down. I dont live in florida so that dont affect me. All I'm doing is filling a demand that wouldn't be there if it was a fair system. Until the system becomes fair or I am put out of business I will continue to make money in my business. There is a fortune to be made selling drugs and Canada is making a lot of it. I want my share and I am doing a dam good job so far.
But there you go again about charging too much. What is too much??? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the drug co.'s setting their own price for their legal products. If people cannot afford them then they can buy something else. Paxil is one of many anti depressants on the market, and should be considered a luxury medicine, so if you want it you should pay for it, or find a cheaper product you can afford.
What the drug co.'s are doing is completely legal and regulated. What you are doing on the other hand is of very questionable legality, and you are profiting from it. Yet you ask us to be upset about the amount of money GSK is making while you are doing the very same thing illegally.
<If I made a business decision and it didn't work out in my faver I would not expect the government to let me just over inflate prices and mess with the supply and demand equation just so that I may stay in business and continue making bad decisions>
I absolutely agree, the government shouldn't pay for that but your other customers do without any limitation on what you can make. I shudder to think of the medicines and procedures that would not be available today if healthcare companies didn't stick out there neck to develop them. If the rewards aren't large enough there won't be the incentive to take the risk.
All businesses take risks. Why should the risks that drug companys take, that is that the drug might fail, be subsidized by having extremely inflated prices for too long of a time period so that they can make a fortune. They should be better risk takers and make better decisions about future prospects for a potential new drug. If I made a business decision and it didn't work out in my faver I would not expect the government to let me just over inflate prices and mess with the supply and demand equation just so that I may stay in business and continue making bad decisions. If a drug company thoguht a drug was gonna work out but then it endedup not working out I would say to bad and go back to the drawing board and take the loss. If they were better at deciding what risks to take then they wouldn't make bad decisions and then they wouldn't have to continue ripping people off by charging too much for a drug that did pass .
<The logical extension is predetermination of how much profit a company can make on a drug before it automatically becomes a generic. Worth a consideration>
And are you going to make up their losses on attempts to develope drugs that don't work?