Bayer CEO: "We did not make this medicine for Indians…we made it for Westerners who can afford it"

[Prince Akeem]

So vulgar...

 

[Mr. Somebody]

-Just shows how much hes ripping off his consumers. Production of this drug is obviously dirty cheap but the price is astronomical. Hes obviously a racist to.

Its so demonic, friends.

 

[ill]

Serious question as I can see both sides of the debate. On one side, you have a big business that invested billions into finding a cure. On the other side are the people that need the treatment but can't afford it due to astronomical pricing.

The cost of manufacturing this drug is very small. The cost of developing it is huge - in the billions. In order for this company to recoup their initial investment, they have to set a high price. India undercuts the price by a lot and kills Bayers revenue. If India replicates all American drugs, what incentive do American companies have to develop cures and solutions for diseases?

If American bio companies lose money creating new drugs, why create them?

 

[The Entity]

Serious question as I can see both sides of the debate. On one side, you have a big business that invested billions into finding a cure. On the other side are the people that need the treatment but can't afford it due to astronomical pricing.

The cost of manufacturing this drug is very small. The cost of developing it is huge - in the billions. In order for this company to recoup their initial investment, they have to set a high price. India undercuts the price by a lot and kills Bayers revenue. If India replicates all American drugs, what incentive do American companies have to develop cures and solutions for diseases?

If American bio companies lose money creating new drugs, why create them?

I've been saying it for years, lessening patent laws will cause innovation to go down...but then its also a question a humanity. Not as dry and cut as people want to make it seem.

Stupid answer by the CEO tho, that kind of bluntless is gong to come across the wrong way. Should have answered in a more politically correct way.

 

[blackzeus]

They are not shielded at all. It's all a scam. Insurance companies benefit just as much from high prices because fear is the greatest advertisement. This paragraph I quoted here is by far the greatest form of advertising that exists for insurance companies.

Basically, how you think Buffet got rich. These insurance companies are just as big as KKR, Goldman Sachs, or any other investment fund out there, which is why they couldn't let AIG fail. It's not just the $100 copay, they caking off that monthly payment, and now that Obamacare is making it mandatory to have healthcare, they finna eat for real now.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Serious question as I can see both sides of the debate. On one side, you have a big business that invested billions into finding a cure. On the other side are the people that need the treatment but can't afford it due to astronomical pricing.

The cost of manufacturing this drug is very small. The cost of developing it is huge - in the billions. In order for this company to recoup their initial investment, they have to set a high price. India undercuts the price by a lot and kills Bayers revenue. If India replicates all American drugs, what incentive do American companies have to develop cures and solutions for diseases?

If American bio companies lose money creating new drugs, why create them?

O poor bayer, those 2 billion a year in profits might be cut down to 1.5 billion.

52 billion in assets.

Its obvious they've recouped enough.

 

[ill]

O poor bayer, those 2 billion a year in profits might be cut down to 1.5 billion.

Thats one side of the argument. Now, what if the total sales of the drug over its life are only 1.5 billion, but it cost them 2 billion to develop it. That means they lose 0.5 billion on creating a cure for a problem in the world today. If they are only going to lose money on developing cures, why would they continue to try to find cures for problems?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Thats one side of the argument. Now, what if the total sales of the drug over its life are only 1.5 billion, but it cost them 2 billion to develop it. That means they lose 0.5 billion on creating a cure for a problem in the world today. If they are only going to lose money on developing cures, why would they continue to try to find cures for problems?

They have 52 billion in assets. They've made enough. Time for some humanitarian aid. Lets not be devils.

 

[tmonster]

good looks on the honesty

 

[Kritic]

just another zionist giving his opinion.

i'm sure he really worked hard.. more than anyone else to get where he got.. and now sh1tting on poor people.

 

[ill]

They have 52 billion in assets. They've made enough. Time for some humanitarian aid. Lets not be devils.

And if they continue to create drugs that lose them money they will eventually lose those 52 billion in assets.

For the sake of argument, lets say a brand new startup wants to enter the market with a drug that cures lets say dementia. Lets assume they are the only one in the world right now that can produce this drug. They don't have 52 bill in assets and they live or die by this one drugs success. Now lets say India undercuts them and basically steals their drug and sells for a deep discount. People with dementia are happy because they get a great cheap deal on their drugs. For humanity, thats great. For the future, its terrible. This company goes bankrupt because India undercut them. What incentive does it give for companies like this to keep trying to find cures in the future if all of their hard work is basically stolen from them and sold for cheap? People innovate to make a profit. If you take their profit, they have no reason to innovate.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

And if they continue to create drugs that lose them money they will eventually lose those 52 billion in assets.

For the sake of argument, lets say a brand new startup wants to enter the market with a drug that cures lets say dementia. Lets assume they are the only one in the world right now that can produce this drug. They don't have 52 bill in assets and they live or die by this one drugs success. Now lets say India undercuts them and basically steals their drug and sells for a deep discount. People with dementia are happy because they get a great cheap deal on their drugs. For humanity, thats great. For the future, its terrible. This company goes bankrupt because India undercut them. What incentive does it give for companies like this to keep trying to find cures in the future if all of their hard work is basically stolen from them and sold for cheap? People innovate to make a profit. If you take their profit, they have no reason to innovate.

Next time i doubt they'll sell those formulas to foreigners before they make their money.

 

[ill]

Next time i doubt they'll sell those formulas to foreigners before they make their money.

They didn't sell their formulas. Indians bought the real product and reverse engineered it. They basically stole the drug from Bayer.

 

[Thoughts]

:smugcac:

New smiley