Pfizer to pay record $2.3 billion settlement

Big Top wrote:

And who gets the $23 billion dollars? Hmmm, it wouldn't be the people who need it, I'll bet.

Mr Skeptical wrote:

Gee, and we wonder why prescription drugs cost so much. Perhaps it's the numerous lawsuits that you see advertised all the time on TV?

Sue In Wayne County wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's not the lawsuits. It's more like intercorporate greed.
Pfizer is just like all the other pharmaceutical giants, trying to grab more than their share of the prescription drug market. Have you ever stopped to consider that this same company sells its products to Canada, where they are retailed at a much lower price than the very same ones they distributed to the American markets? Why is that?(Answer: favorable nepostistic legislation passed by the Bush administration).)
Permitting public advertising of prescription drug products, another ploy that received the Bush blessing, created a pharmaceutical corporate war, and in their haste to corner the market for their particular products, they end up pointing the legal finger at each other. Why do you think Bextra and Vioxx are off the market but Celebrex remains? All three are COX-2 inhibitors, all three are effective against symptoms of arthritis and menstrual cramps, and all three have a similar side effect profile, but only one product, Celebrex, survived the legal squabble between Pfizer and Merck. None of these lawsuits has anything to do with the safety or welfare of the consumer.
This latest issue with Bextra is no different. It has nothing to do with consumer safety but arose out of a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a disgruntled Pfizer employee, who, by the way, will get a whopping $51.5 MILLION for whining former employer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/i...

Sue In Wayne County wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's not the lawsuits. It's more like intercorporate greed.
Pfizer is just like all the other pharmaceutical giants, trying to grab more than their share of the prescription drug market. Have you ever stopped to consider that this same company sells its products to Canada, where they are retailed at a much lower price than the very same ones they distributed to the American markets? Why is that?(Answer: favorable nepostistic legislation passed by the Bush administration).)
Permitting public advertising of prescription drug products, another ploy that received the Bush blessing, created a pharmaceutical corporate war, and in their haste to corner the market for their particular products, they end up pointing the legal finger at each other. Why do you think Bextra and Vioxx are off the market but Celebrex remains? All three are COX-2 inhibitors, all three are effective against symptoms of arthritis and menstrual cramps, and all three have a similar side effect profile, but only one product, Celebrex, survived the legal squabble between Pfizer and Merck. None of these lawsuits has anything to do with the safety or welfare of the consumer.
This latest issue with Bextra is no different. It has nothing to do with consumer safety but arose out of a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a disgruntled Pfizer employee, who, by the way, will get a whopping $51.5 MILLION for whining former employer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/i...

Mr Skeptical wrote:

<quoted text>
All good points, however, I would like to add that the pharmacutical compaines pass the costs of their lawsuits onto us, the consumers, and it's usually on meds that are life saving...and not the ones that help with arthritis, foot fungus, or acne, unfortunately.
As for Canada, yes, the drugs are cheaper because of government regulation...but really, that just means they make smaller profits there, and then charge us U.S. citizens a lot more so they can fund their R&D for new products. Basically, us Americans are financing all the R&D for the rest of the world....because other countries like Canada that regulate it, or other countries that are so poor they couldn't afford to pay our prices.
I'm afraid their is no great solution here. If we regulated costs the way Canada does, they wouldn't have the funds to create new medicines and drugs.
What's worse about the drug companies is that they only want to create 'treatments' for conditions, so you'll have to take them for life. They don't want cures....there's no money in it! If they had a "Cure" for, say, heart disease, and took 1 pill and cured, they wouldn't make any money, they'd rather you take something everyday for life! Of course, if they DIDN'T do that, they would have no money to find new cures and treatments. Round and round we go!
I don't know how to remedy any of this. Its getting worse by the day, but no matter what you do, nothing seems like a good solution.