Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement

allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers

Patients will be better informed than under the status quo

Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients

Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs

Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses

The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system

The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the "ill-informed" pubic.

In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public

Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005,  www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement

I extend all of my arguments. -Thank you

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses

Creating a mentality of illness

Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.”[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies.   [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011,  http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011

Extend all my arguments.

Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.   [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011

Patients will be better informed than under the status quo

Hope my opponent shows up eventually.

I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the "diagnosis" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their "patients" to have serious medical problems -Thank you

There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.

Drug Commercials

If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand. In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert.   [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005,  www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients

According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products.  [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system

Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2].  “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs.  This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more.   [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003,  http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go,  http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010,  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/

Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs

Alternatively, private pharmaceutical companies should be abolished and the state should provide medical care for its people without capitalism and profit as a motive for companies to raise prices and such. However, that is in many ways a whole different topic.Regardless, I am interested as to what the benefits that supposedly carry more weight than the negatives are, in order for me to form a better argument against your position.

Medicare in the U.S should be able to negotiate with private drug (pharma) companies.

Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1]   [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

Creating a mentality of illness

By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full

This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine

This is the full King La Ding sponsored resolution: Medicare in the U.S is barred by the Medicare drug benefit passed in 2003 from negotiating prices of pharmaceuticals with private companies, King La Ding contends as pro that Medicare should be able to negotiate with private companies, because the benefits outweigh the negatives. They were bouncing in the street. Not the chicken just the feet.

The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.  Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.

How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is? improve this

Restrictions reach out to the general population

No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.

Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.

The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent.

I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.

Drug Commercials

Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.

Thanks for debating with me. I don't see anything wrong misleading about advertising something but selling something different like candy and cigarettes. They are sold in every supermarket, numerous shops, and even petrol stations, and are a common product. There is no reason whatsoever to assume those produts are healthy. Parents, doctors, teachers etc will tell you they aren't healthy.

Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor’s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.

People should ask for cheaper alternatives

Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.  [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002,  http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

Ok, my opponent has basically just conceded the resolution. The resolution states that drug commercials should be legally policed. My opponent just conceded that they are legal and has not attacked my argument on constitutional legality. As far as my opponent's argument goes, he basically uses an example of a company using ads to mislead the public. Again, drug companies can do that. The question is whether or not the company should be punished. And my opponent says that these ads are bad as a whole. In most scenarios, they're actually good because patients learn about the product and the company makes money. Again my opponent just conceded the legality argument (which is what the resolution is about) and is losing the ethics argument.

Drug Commercials

Pharmacies are reluctant to reduce prices because their prices have to reflect their costs. A great deal of money is spent in order to get the drugs to the patient and the NHS would be greatly affected if prices reduced because in business terms they would be doomed to failure. A business which relies on public funding is successful and continues if it is and continues to be publicly-funded, and this applies to most industries including the NHS. The general public would surely prefer the NHS with expensive and overpriced drugs to no NHS at all and all private healthcare, which would be extremely expensive anyway.

Reducing prices will affect the NHS

Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. "They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.

The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.

Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.

Ok, I know it's legal, but it doesn't have to be right. Just keep telling people they should convince their doctor they need this stuff. Look at Xarelto. They advertiser says you should ask your doctor, on the other station some lawyer is wanting to sue the drug company on your behalf, because of the serious side effects, including death. OK, I know it's legal. I shouldn't have started this debate, you can't fight money and big business. Hopefully people are smart enough to ignore these ads.

Drug Commercials

Removing profit as a motive means that drug companies would be more likely to consider which drugs would actually benefit the most people and less about which would create the most overall profit. For example, pharmaceutical companies have reduced or dropped their research into developing new antibiotics, even as antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are increasing, because there's less profit to be gained there than in other drug research. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/MN1234A1.DTL)

Would shift the onus from profitability to public benefit.

Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.

Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency

Why do most people prefer Coca-Cola to some other cola? Why do some people prefer Calvin Klein underwear to some other unadvertised brand? Are the advertised products functionally better? Not necessarily. But, in the mind of the consumer, advertising has given these brands added value. In the mid-1960s, a famous psychologist named Ernest Dichter asserted that a product"s image, created in part by advertising and promotion, is an inherent feature of the product itself. Subsequent studies showed that while an ad may not address a product"s quality directly, the positive image conveyed by advertising may imply quality. Moreover, by simply making the product better known, advertising can make the product more desirable to the consumer. In these ways, advertising adds value to the brand. That"s why people pay more for Bufferin than an unadvertised brand displayed right next to it"even though all buffered aspirin, by law, is functionally the same. Advertising also adds value to a brand by educating customers about new uses for a product. Kleenex was originally advertised as a makeup remover, later as a disposable handkerchief. AT&T first promoted the telephone as a necessity and later as a convenience. One advantage of the free-market system is that consumers can choose the values they want in the products they buy. If, for example, low price is important, they can buy an inexpensive economy car. If status and luxury are important, they can buy a fancy sedan or racy sports car. Many of our wants are emotional, social, or psychological rather than functional. One way we communicate who we are (or want to be) is through the products we purchase and display. By associating the product with some desirable image, advertising offers people the opportunity to satisfy those psychic or symbolic wants and needs. In terms of our economic framework, by adding value to products, advertising contributes to self-interest"for both the consumer and the advertiser. It also contributes to the number of sellers. That increases competition, which also serves the consumer"s self-interest.

advertisement leads to rise in economy

Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system. As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising. Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States[1]. Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter.[2] Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.   [1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011

1) Walgreens is the largest drug retailing chain in the United States [1], and it is now rolling out freshly prepared food, and customers are likely to find a pharmacist in the aisle to greet them and answer questions [2]. It is not known for it's candy and cigarettes, so I would say it's "happy and healthy" theme is very suitable. Below is a link to the television advert if you wish to watch - First Timers (GPE) Walgreens Commercial My nepthew is 4 years old yet he knows sweets, chocolate, and cigarettes are unhealthy. He would never think his teacher, and family are wrong simply because he saw a sign saying "At the corner of happy and healthy" on Walgreen even if he wanted to believe candy is healthy.I think by the time a child reaches an age where they are given pocket money, or are old enough to get a paper round or other low paid job, they will know that candy is a treat, especially if their parents only lets him/her have candy as a way to reward good behaviour.2) Doctors should be able to choose their own life style as it is their life, and they should live it which ever way they choose provided it doesn't harm anyone. Eating burgers, and smoking etc in their own free time does not hurt anyone else. Doctors don't need to be physically fit to help others, they just need to be knowledable. People who are obsessed about avoiding particular foods because they are labelled unhealthy tend to develop eating disorders. It is therefore important for doctors health to listen to their body. Treating yourself now and then does no harm. In fact it would reduce stress.sources:[1] wikipedia[2] http://www.bizjournals.com...

Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].

Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits

The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies[1]. These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted[2]. [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers

Dr Marcia Angell (former editor of New England Journal of Medicine) Only 14 per cent of budgets go on developing drugs. The case for the granting of patents is that the resulting profits are necessary to finance the expensive process of R&D. These artificial monopolies, however, have proved very inefficient. “The FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars.” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html]] This disparity shows R&D is a relatively minor financial concern. “The pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/022698.html]]. The main concern of pharmaceuticals is not the cost of research and development but advertising to compete with other firms and create a market for its product. This is not necessary for life-saving drugs; you may need advertising to be convinced to buy a skin care product but you hardly need convincing to purchase a HIV drug that will save your life. Apart from need-instilling publicity pharmaceuticals spend fortunes ensuring their profits are not compromised by legislation. “Drug companies spent more than $3bn on lobbyists and political "contributions" over the past decade in the US alone.”[[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html]]. The vast majority of the profits pharmaceuticals get allegedly to facilitate R&D, go to publicity and lobbying. Our plan would end this ridiculous waste. It would subsidize and reward success and tangible improvements in vaccines that can save lives; it would pay for the R&D with none of the frills. This is further evidence of the viability of this proposal, with cheaper R&D and patent-free drugs health care systems across the world would save billions in addition to those saved by the absence of premi

Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results

We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market.[1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research. Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average. By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually.[2] So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further.  Advertising would provide this revenue. [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004,  http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf, accessed 08/08/2011 [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006,  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

Robert Reich. "Why critics of a public option for healthcare are wrong". Salon. June 24, 2009: "Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with healthcare on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals."

Public insurer can best negotiate down drug prices

Reducing profit, reduces motive and the money necessary to get a drug through FDA trials. Without profit motive, drug companies will naturally move away from the rare and complex, yet fatal, diseases if they only affect a small percentage of people. Without the ability to set the price, their resources will naturally be moved almost exclusively into benign treatments which will have a larger percentage of the population as potential users.

Allowing for pooling of resources to force drugs to lower prices will reduce overall innovation.

#1 Just because something is not known for something opposite of what it's known for does not mean it doesn't exist. Like America and poverty. For both, you at least have to say that it is hypocritical. Because of this hypocritisy, doctors and pharmacies should not sell or use tobacco or in some cases, candy.

Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D[1]. They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’

My opinion is that places such as Walgreens should not sell cigarettes and candy, as that is hypocritical because Walgreens message slogan is "At the corner of happy and healthy. " This applies to hospitals selling candy as well.

I extend.

Drug Commercials

There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients’ over-the-counter purchases, but a patient’s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer’s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.

There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...

It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture. There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.

The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper

When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry. 1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available:  2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available:  3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available: improve this

Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products

Ron Pollack The pharmaceutical industry's repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if drug prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading. [[ http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html%5D%5D Yes, R&D costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals' budgets go to R&D. Reports have linked "high drug prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that drug companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.”[[Ibid.]] Our plan does not threaten this pathetic level of investment spending. Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research. For non-life saving drugs revenue is spread over 20 years and is by not guaranteed to cover costs. Our plan is much more hassle-free for businesses and encourages higher investment in productive R&D by giving firms what they spend towards developing a new drug. This marks a break from the status quo where only one in five of drugs developed are actually innovative rather than rehashed copies of old drugs. [Ibid]] In addition to research by firms we also enable charitable-institutions and universities to carry out further research. Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. The cost savings we offer would allow us to hire some of the world’s best scientists to work in renown campuses and research institutions with a view to find solutions to pressing illnesses while still being much cheaper than the current cost. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective.

Taking Away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving Drugs

*NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term "relative". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world." Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word "Costs" as used in the debate title is defined as "The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as "Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup." I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.

The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2

#1) While you could argue that Walgreens jingle is not saying what they sell; kids could see they sell healthy foods, and then could assume cigarettes and candy are healthy. At minimum, that is hypocritical of them. #2) You state that a doctor should do what makes them happy, but isn't it hypocritical to say dont smoke when the doctor smokes a pack a day. Or at rehab, where the doctor uses crack like the patient

but you could get audited to any drug like my real dad is to beer and that's why I don't go to his house any more.

All store should stop selling drugs.

I find your first sentence is very confusing: "Just because something is not known for something opposite of what it's known for does not mean it doesn't exist."Poverty does exist in countries which are said to be rich, and people go to a doctor or chemist to improve their health, but they don't encourage anyone to smoke or eat candy. Staff at Walgreens are there to help customers. People can freely choose to consume what they like, and should not be prevented from doing so when those products are legal.

Drug patent time limits are defined as the 15 years given to the inventor or developer of a prescription drug to have exclusive rights to selling and distributing the drug without having to compete with generic brands of their product. This allows prescription drug manufacturers to artificially raise prices, slow down the process of research and development, and to eliminate all competition for an overly extended period of time. Drug patent time limits are benefical in allowing drug producers to be rewarded and compensated for their research in developing new medicines, however, by allowing an overly extended amount of time, it is slowing down the progression of modern medicine and defeating American capitalism through excessive regulation. In a capitalist society, the government should only regulate to the point where there is an incentive to produce. That point lies where the firm initially begins to earn economic profits. A perfectly competitive industry allows other companies to enter the industry at this point. At this point there are only variable costs and the costs of production should be equal between corporations. Now the firms may ablely compete for the purchasing powers of its citizens. The fatally flawed drug patent hinders this from happening. The affirmative proposes a system that will oppose the Con's case supporting the status quo: 7 years would be alloted as a drug patent, with the normal abilities of extension being available to the corporation. The average extension ranges from 5 to 7 years, giving a total estimated patent to the pharmaceutical corporation of 12-14 years, in comparison to the 25-27 years that you are defending. The appeals process, which is legal and cannot be banned without being in contradiction of many standing laws, is a permanent fixture in the system. The drug patents lead the consumer to believe that, due to its excessive period of exclusive rights, that generic drugs are inferior to their original drug, while they are in fact the exact same product. Allowing for the abuse of the drug patent system while corporations continue to amount massive profits is monopolistic and unhealthy for both the American economy and the future of American medicine and pharmaceuticals. Modern American capitalism with government regulation holds anti-trust laws that prevent patents from being absolute. If the best drug is to survive, then it is with respect to generic drugs. However, generic drugs are equal to the original drug, so the competition playing field is relatively equal. A National Center for Policy Analysis study criticized this corporate splurging, and cited that less than 1/3 of profits are spent towards research in development, in comparison to over 50% on advertisement during the original time of the patent. However, during the last 3 years of the drug's exclusive rights overall, the corporation actually increases its advertising spending heading in to the surfacing of generic drugs. In terms of the incentives for the Affirmative's plan, the incentive to create lies in the company's ability to maximize profits over a period of time, but making this period of time shorter would not act as a disincentive. Even after the profit maximization, they still hold the upperhand in the opinion of the consumers and usually tend to charge more than the generic drugs will charge, despite the bioequivalency of the two drugs and the equally similar costs of production. An economic incentive is given even if the drug manufacturer is given a few months to exclusively market and sell its drug. Thanks, The Colonel

Selling to the vulnerable

ban the promotion of diets

That's what I was thinking most of the time and I do agree but they should do something about people taking other peoples medicines and iv been saying that the whole time and I can tell u to shut up if I want to

All store should stop selling drugs.

Extend my argument please. Cudos to my opponent for appologizing in the comments for the forfeit.

Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent

Dietary Advertisement are Advertised increasingly high throughout these days ..I admit that even i myself are caught up in these kinds on Advertisement. Most of these Advertisements are mostly cons. Not all of them are true. Not Only that teenagers will easily be effected and they will eventually take actions without any guide. They will make there own unhealthy diets and it will eventually effect there health .Not all teenagers will think rationally about what they are about to do .Its true that we want teenagers to make there own step to ensure there life path but it will eventually ruin there life if we don't guide them .these kind of things may cause teenagers to have anorexia..they will starve themselves. Some teenagers are naturally already thin but because of these kind of advertisement will make them have a different perspective.

Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist

Thank you for accepting Walgreens's motto/slogan is "At the corner of happy and healthy," thereby implying that they sell products that are heakty and cause happyness. How are candy and cigarettes healthy? Candy causes cavities and diabetes; tobacco causes cancer and emphysema. That is the opposite of healthy. It is hypocritical of a company to advertise their products as healthy when infact they do the opposite. I once saw nicorette sold next to cigarettes. That kind of makes you lose credibility when you have product A, then have product B right next to product A, and B is to help quit A. In this medical hypocritisy, my doctors office sells candy and chips! That is hypocritical. Also, how can doctors tell a person they need to eat healthier or to stop smoking, but then go out and buy McDonald's and have a smoke break. The first example is false advertising, and the second one is just hypocrisy, of which niether should be allowed.

Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

Okay, my opponent has not only forfeited his last round but has also forfeited the chance to respond late, as I have given him an extra 2 days to respond in the comment section. My arguments still stand. My opponent's arguments have all been responded to either directly or indirectly. I reiterate: Drug patent time limits are VITAL for any new pharmaceuticals to come on the market. If anything, they should be extended. Some drugs should even be eligible for large government grants, in my opinion. It all has to do with how drugs go from the chemistry text to the pharmacy shelves.

Firstly, it is not true that it only cost $70 million to fund a drug research/production. The costs are significantly higher into $100-$800 million range. On the issue of marketing, marketing costs will be higher under the proposition model. Under the status quo, firms with patents don't need to market much because they already have a product that no one else can sell. Under the ned model, firms that are now producing the exact same drug now need to spend significant sums on marketing to attempt to differentiate their product.[[www.galbithink.org/cc4m.pdf]] Also the prop seems to be saying that they would be apying for all the R&D of these multiple companies because as soon as then info is out there that's it there are no more costs, this is not true, there a re production costs, labour costs, marketing costs (which will balloon), not to mention the initial start up fees. What is the great incentive for a company to enter this market if it's chances for profit are minimized? The prop essentially reduces the incentives for R&D for life saving drugs by creating a situation buinesses won't want to be in if they don't have to and the prop has also showed how drug comapnies do trend towards making more cosmetic drugs such as hair loss treatments, which they could still patent under the model. So why would a company choose aa lower profit margin at cost over a possible massive profit with costs, for a business it just doesn't make sense why they would choose to create important medication when there is very little in ot for them and this is the situation the prop will be creating.

Public insurer can best negotiate down drug prices

Public health insurance option

Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws

ban the sale of 3D printers to households

Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.

All store should stop selling drugs.

Alright. Let's say that Universal Health care becomes a right today. What's going to happen next? Let's look at the medical industry, And how it works. More specifically, Let's look at the pharmaceutical industry. The pharma companies are mostly in charge of providing new medications. How do they do that? Through Research and Development. The pharma companies are currently researching new medications that could help the average person, Like you and me. But these "new" medications aren't cheap, As you and I know. That's why generic medications exist: same effects as the brand name medication, But at a lower cost. How do generic brands exist? Through the free market. The free market dictates what they want, And if there is a good chunk of people who want to pay less for the same brand name medication, Then the free market creates an opportunity for that to happen. Now what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? Actually, Before I get into that, I am going to explain why pharma companies have incentive to create new medication. These pharma companies mainly appeal to hospitals because since people go to hospitals for basically everything from ER operations to getting a check-up, They know consumers who go to hospitals will most likely pay for more expensive medication, Which are the brand-name medication. But the generic medication exist so that retail clinics can create lower prices for non-emergency causes, Like if you have the cold or the flu. Mind you, I am not saying that the cold or the flu are not important to treat, But I am saying that they are less important than, Say, Someone with a broken leg or someone who got a heart attack. These retail clinics, Given enough legal headroom to operate so long as they have professionally licensed doctors, Can create relatively dirt-cheap prices for the middle class, And in some cases, Even the poor people. What am I saying? I am saying that If the free market is allowed enough room to open more retail clinics and allow these retail clinics to compete with each other, They can actually help more people while operating more efficiently and having lower prices. Now, That doesn't mean we should get rid of hospitals. Hospitals are great for emergency operations and urgent care. But for everything else, Retail clinics are the preferred method of treatment due to lower prices. Now, Back to the question: what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? What happens is that these big pharma companies don't have incentive to create new medications because they have no competition. Without generic brands, Big pharma sees the opportunity to significantly slow down progress on new, High end medication while increasing the price of currently available medication. "So, Why don't we regulate the prices? " you might be asking. Let me tell you why: Once you start implementing price control, Especially to the medical industry, These already existing medications become absurdly scarce to the point where it's nearly impossible to get the medication you need without waiting in line for hours on end. You know what else makes you wait for ours on end because of a scarce item? Rationing. Eventually, We will reach the point where we say "there aren't enough medications for everyone. Let's ration. ", And we start restricting the amount of medications one can get. These big pharma companies will see that governments are controlling how much a person can get of a medication, And these pharma companies not only lose incentive to create new medications, But also lose incentive to keep a sustainable production rate. Why? Because when you ration something, Production of said rationed item will have more supply than there is demand, And that cost these companies a lot of money. So to alleviate this issue, The pharma companies slow down production to the point where there is now more demand than supply. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Due to their leader giving free medication, People wait in lines for hours on end, Hoping to get their ration of medications they need, Only to be greeted with a "We just ran out of medications to give out. Try coming back tomorrow. " Not only does this screw over the people we waited hours on end only to not get what they absolutely need, But it also creates a bigger health crisis than there needed to be. More people get sick due to scarcity of medications, And we eventually start to see all but the very elite who can afford to pay for the importation of medication die. All because we made health care a right. Let's step back for a moment and see what went wrong. By making health care a right, You just eliminated the free market that allowed for most people to afford medication. By eliminating the free market, You created an endless cycle of expensive and scarce medications that will only get worse as time goes on. That is why health care is not and should not be a right. By making it a right, You mess with the absolute fundamentals of the medical industry, Thus causing this endless cycle of scarcity we see right now in Venezuela.

Health care is a human right

I agree to my opponent that it creates awareness among the consumers regarding the particular product but one can't deny the fact that they are far much misleading Here are the points on which I rely - 1-Cost of advertisement affects the cost of product. It will become burden to costumer. 2-The promoters only emphasise on the merits. 3-Advertisers present the product as a favourite of the celebrities. This has great influence on young minds. 4-People are preferring ready made food than fruits and vegetables through advertising. These new habits are adversely impacting their health. 5-Some pesticides, though in very small quantities were found in common cold drinks. But advertisers are not revealing this fact. 6-All cosmetic products are advertised in the name of fruit extracts, the chemical contents are neither displayed nor printed on the product cover. 7-Teenagers are attracted by cigarette, alcohol and diet pills advertisements, and their health is adversely effecting by these habits. 8-Consumers tend to be manipulated by an advertisement's promise that the product will do something special for them, which upsets their budget. 9-An advertisement for an expensive good is likely to create an ill-feeling in the mind of a poor teenager who cannot afford it. Such feelings often lead to hatred and anti-social activities. I would remind the opponent that he should post his argument and then in the final round we will put up ways and conclusions on this topic

The malicious and misleading advertisements of today

Great debate. Thanks.

Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers

produce high quality generic drugs for Africa

Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own and have to persuade their parents to buy the products for them. Rather than advertising directly to parents, companies use a 'nag and whine' campaign that leads to bad feeling between parents and children. They rely on pester power to make adults spend money they don’t have on things they don’t want to buy, and which their children may well only play with for a few hours. Advertising which presents products to children as 'must-have' is also socially divisive, making children whose parents cannot afford them appear inferior, and creating feelings of frustration and inadequacy, as well as leading families into debt.

Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own ...

Karl Rove. "How to Stop Socialized Health Care" Wall Street Journal. June 11, 2009: "Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits."

Insurance industry has sufficient competition w/o public option

If marijuana dispensaries are indeed about providing marijuana for medical purposes, than entire dispensaries are probably excessive. Instead, why not carry medical marijuana in pharmacies? This would probably reduce the excessive supply and abuses, and would certainly eliminate concerns of shady crowds centering around dispensaries and creating concerns for local communities.

Whole marijuana dispensaries are excessive; pharmacies better.

Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products

allow the production of generic drugs

My first couple decades as a Registered Pharmacist in the United States were from 1965 to 1985. The major pharmaceutical manufacturers were invested in healing, curing disease and ameliorating symptoms that diminished quality of life. They were the "Good Guys". We, in the industry, trusted them. We worked with them. We had relationships with their representatives. They were good times, fine times. The average prescription was around $12.00. Generic equivalents were new to the market. Brand name dispensing was the custom. The manufacturers made money. Now, 2005, there is no doubt that the only mission Big Pharma strives for is to MAKE A PROFIT. As big a profit as they can. The idea that they are interested in curing illness is a laugher. They bring out new drugs for big illnesses "high cholesterol". Lipitor is or was recently the top grossing drug on the planet. As Rhett Buter said, "Frankly, My Dear, we don't give a damn about your little, inconspicuous disease. There's no money in it. Oh, hell, stop it. We know you are going to die, but .. well, there' just NO PROFIT in it." Pfizer then turns to Smith-Kline Glaxo and says, "Let's go get a drink." Jim Plagakis at http://www.jimplagakis.com

It's a "No-Brainer". In the USA Big Pharma is enjoying 8 years of "Dubya" by raking in the profits

I accept. position: I believe Pharmacies should sell whatever is good for mind and body

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. Extend all arguments. Hopefully she's back for round 3!The resolution remains unaffirmed.

For this round, it may seem a bit jumbled as we will start where we left off on our opponents' case and then move onto our defense. R2 will be assimilated into another one of our contentions due to the similarities. ===Rebuttals=== R3: Supply and Demand This was not refuted in our last round as we ran out of characters, as previously stated, but we shall address it this round. It may be true that this price raise would lead to such a competitiveness in a free market, BUT this isn't the status quo. As we have previously shown in R2, Turing has a market monopoly and the government has increased the harm here by adding so much red tape to the point where there cannot be any other company that enters here even though there is plenty of alternatives available. Turing made this decision knowing that there was no alternative and with this drug being so needed, people would be forced to buy this drug. With this being the status quo, we would have to see that you should flow this argument into our favor since there is no alternatives currently. Pro's free market has failed us in this field. Quoting Airmax is irrelevant to the debate. He is another DDO user and who has stated that he shouldn't be quoted, shouldn't have such a statement given. Please throw this out of the debate. ===Defense=== C1: Stakeholder My opponent should be the one concerned here as the insurance question is another free market issue. Here the government intervenes in the insurance industry, which then transitions it to a mixed system. Any argument here on insurance should be flown to Con's side in this debate due to it going against Pro's ethics. We have even stated that it would be lowered for hospitals, so this is another thing that is irrelevant, but we can see that we are still seeing harms here as it affects the average Americans and as shown before on how 22% of the US needs it and so many are unable to get the treatment for it. My opponent has failed to address or even acknowledge our impacts, please extend these across the board. People do have self-ownership, but we are arguing what should be done. The business is what should be operated on behalf of the public, since the free market, as purposed by our opponents, has failed to do its job. People have self-autonomy, but my opponent has yet to actually argue anything on how a business should have this. As a result, this attack is repelled as my opponent has yet to make an actual argument on behalf of the business, but has only argued about people. C2: Market Monopoly Our opponents' response is questionable. We did nothing here that seems to be atopical, but rather argued that since they were aware of the market monopoly and still did this knowing they would get away with it. Not to mention that this argument is one that is an attack on Our Opponents’ Free Market argument, so this argument is highly relevant to the debate at hand. We understand that the issue here is with the government regulations caused a problem, but it is our opponent's themselves that argued that their "Free Market" was the aspect that allowed Turing to raise their prices. These government regulations were a huge portion and part in their factoring that allowed them to do this. If these regulations weren't there then they would have elected to not do this. If Turing had been a wheat company and did this with wheat. Then people would go to other wheat sources and Turing would go under, but this isn't wheat. This is medicine. If the regulations fell away, if they didn't raise their prices...if. If is an issue here and our opponents are only begging the question here. We are arguing about what had occurred, not some different situation as even our opponents stated similar a few paragraphs above. Our opponents' flip-flop results in the negation of both of their arguments. We could play this blame game all day long, but we have to see that the system is something that influenced their decision and with our opponent using the market system as a means of ethics, this would apply directly to their case. Please extend this across. C3: Ethic of Care This was completely justified and many of the harms were cross applied from other arguments. The impacts where also not even addressed and such a drop should result in our victory on impact calc. Our opponent's don't even go and refute this argument and simply brush it aside. Please extend this argument across the board as this wasn't anywhere close to even a proper rebuttal of this argument as they simply brushed it off. ===Rebuttals=== R1: Capitalism and Freedom. This isn't a strawman but a legitament argument. Our opponents are simply trying to defame us here. We have to remember that there were instances in US and human history where slaves where considered unhuman and how we were doing them a favor. Slaves were even considered property and we can simply see here that this completely fits in their definition of capitalism as it allows them to protect property rights and if slaves are considered property, as they were, it would not only be permitted, but entirely justified. As a result, our arguments stands. There are many things that can be argued on the subject of Capitalism, but that is for another debate as people can go all day on the differences, pros and cons. Our opponent's rebuttal on Chile is subpar. Simply by sticking your head in the sand and ignoring how capitalism has led to these terrible things is a selective bias. This argument easily sticks and our opponents' argument should be flown to our side of the debate. We can argue on the issues of what if all day long, but the issue is that in the status quo it was unethical and our opponent's ethics are, by themselves unethical. Do keep in mind that our opponents did link their system of ethics to Capitalism as all one had to do is show how Capitalism was unethical, then our opponents' entire case is moot. With that we hand things off to our opponents once more for the final round.

Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to substantially increase the price of Daraprim was ethical

Drug companies are by no means omnipotent, they are as much subject to the forces of the free market as any other business. If anything, the nations in Southern Africa have the largest market for the drugs in the world, so the drug companies would not be supplying the drugs at the current price, if people were not buying them. The threat of generic drugs only further serves to discourage drug companies from creating new and more effective medicines, as the developing nations have shown them that their patent rights will not be respected.

The countries with the biggest AIDS problems are held as a captive market and are forced essentially...

Banning advertising won't work

ban the promotion of diets

Public insurance would not waste money on advertising

Public health insurance option

The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason[1]. African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states.   [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’

Savings can be used in other sections of medical care

The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws of the market should tell you that the reduced profit for drugs like AZT and Nevirapine will be recouped from the fact that the drugs will suddenly become affordable to a market of millions of sufferers, many of whom will be using products like AZT for the duration of the disease, so it would not be a case of the companies losing money in making the drugs cheaper after all.

The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws ...

Opposition Summary

Patents on life-saving drugs should be bypassed

so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.

People believe the marketing hype too much

My opponent has forfeited this round, so there is not much to say. In case he will come back next round, I will go ahead and list some companies that would not benifit from advertising to children:1. Adult Film2. Car Rentals3. Life/Car/Homeowner's Insurance4. Adult Diapers5. Lawyers6. Real Estate

should companies market towards children

Karl Rove. "How to Stop Socialized Health Care" Wall Street Journal. June 11, 2009: "Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition [and choice] enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits."

Private insurers offer sufficient choices

Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug[1], as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States.[2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa.  [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/features/getsmart/

Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access

Extend argument.

All recreational drugs should be legalized in the U.S and sold commercially with a tax

So on the one hand you claim people in Africa can buy the drugs cheaply after the patents end and on the other you are telling us old drugs are useless because of viral resistance. Indeed this makes it all the more important to encourage innovation. We have been accused of wanting to “ change the focus of drug production from the development of new drugs to the cheaper production of drugs that already exist.”. Apart from the fact that these two aren’t mutually exclusive this accusation naively assumes what there currently IS a focus on production of new life-saving drugs. However, “the current systems of innovation encourage drug firms to spend too much on developing minor modifications of existing drugs and on competitive marketing and patent litigation, instead of focusing efforts on innovations that will have the largest global health impact.”[[ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/08/31/opinion/Proposed-health-fund-could-encourage-drug-developm-30136907.html%5D%5D. Currently “firms have incentives to focus on the diseases of people who can pay a lot of money when they get sick, even though those diseases tend to have many available treatments already, and the incremental health gains are typically small.” [[Ibid.]]. “Profit made by pharmaceutical firms is not, in fact, a return on their R&D, but is, instead, a return on their marketing investments”[[http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/?cat=4]] and as a result there is less incentive to make genuine investment that is aimed at the medical breakthroughs we need to address the problems you mention. Our plan changes all this. R&D is encouraged and is directly related to profit. We create a fund that is able to attract investment in research where it is most needed fulfilling the aspirations of scientists and the needs of patients. It will directly encourage greater and more meaning full investment spending.

Consequences of the Loss of Incentives.

I disagree. In fact, I think that all drugs should be illegal, except for prescription drugs/drugs used by hospitals to treat patients.

All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults.

I agree with the burden of proof as well as the definitions. Lets have at it! ========== Lower Costs ========== -Electronic Conversion This is simply a non-unique argument. Offices are already doing this without being forced to by the government. We would be spending more money by making companies do this, while they are already doing so. We would just be spending money to enforce what does not need to be. -Better care for chronic patients Quality cannot be forced. Quality occurs because of competition. This is simple economics. If doctors have to compete for patients, they can lower their prices, and increase the quality of their work. If there is competition, there is quality. If there is no competition (under Obama's plan), there is lower quality. If doctors are paid the same, there is NO incentive to increase the quality of their work. The remaining parts of the "argument" are simply excerpts of the plan that I have addressed. I will address one more segment though. "'Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers.'" This is ridiculous. This will not lower prices since drug companies already sell generic drugs. They lower prices BECAUSE they already sell generic drugs. If they did not, they would hurt themselves. If Wal-Mart stopped selling generic Ibuprofen, Walgreens would profit. This would not be wise for Wal-Mart, and thus has never happened. This is another non-unique argument. ======================= STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH ======================= Once again, there is no argument made. My opponent simply spouts verses from the HC plan. "'(1) EMPLOYERS. [...] To address employee health, an increasing number of employers are offering worksite health promotion programs, onsite clinical preventive services such as flu vaccinations, nutritious foods in cafeterias and vending machines, and exercise facilities. Equally important, many employers choose insurance plans that cover preventive services for their employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that worksite interventions hold tremendous potential to influence health and they will expand and reward these efforts.'" Pay close attention to the last line. Whenever the President "encourages" or "rewards" a certain action, it means more money being spent. Obama has already promised not to raise taxes on people who make under $250,000 a year. With such a large part of the population not being taxed higher, the US starts to lack funds. (Anyone notice we are already in trillions of dollars in debt?) If he is going to reward these actions, he needs funds. Where are the funds coming from? If not from taxpayer dollars, then he can resort to either extreme taxation on the upper-class, or printing off more money (which he has already done). Then we are left with either extremely disproportionate taxes (which discourages achievement) or inflation. Do any of these options sound like a good idea? If we let the free market do its thing, the best interests of the economy and the American people are brought to the surface. "'(2) SCHOOL SYSTEMS. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic [7] [...]. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.'" Once again, note the term "increased financial support." Where is that money going to come from? "'(4) INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their health and make the right decisions in their own lives – if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that all Americans are empowered to monitor their health by ensuring coverage of essential clinical services in all federally supported health plans, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the new public plan.'" Here is what this section is really saying: The smart people who take care of themselves are going to be paying for the dumb, lazy people who rely on taxpayer dollars to live. Plain and simple. With this plan, we award stupidity. People work hard for their money. If they want healthcare, they will buy it. If people do not work, and do not make money, they will not buy healthcare. If the working class is forced to pay for the health of the lazy class, then there is absolutely NO incentive to be a hard worker! How is that good for anyone, much less the economy? ========================= Bad news for those with Healthcare ========================= Obama's health-care plan is drawing criticism from one of his own advisers, Harvard University's Martin Feldstein. In today's Washington Post, Feldstein warns that "For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement." Obama's plan would "cost more than $1 trillion," and raise the top federal "income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent." That certainly doesn't sound like it helps the American people. Are we going to disregard that 85% of Americans? ============ My Conclusion ============ If we go with Obama's HC plan, we have two major issues. 1-Insufficient funds 2-Extremely detrimental effects to 85% of Americans To me, that sounds more than enough to deject the HC plan. The resolution is negated. ============ Sources ============ http://www.hovservices.com... http://www.openmarket.org... http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com... http://www.barackobama.com... http://www.mlive.com...

Obama's Health Care Plan is beneficial to the United States of America

The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens

allow the production of generic drugs

My opponent forfeited and presented not a single argument.Seems to be pretty ususal on this site, which is a pity.Could've been a good debate.Extend argument.Thanks and goodbye!