Is America on (prescription) Drugs?

In the debate over the costs of prescription drugs, these points seem to have been neglected or misunderstood:

• Pharmaceutical companies sell drugs in Canada and elsewhere because they make a profit despite the lower price, not as a public service.
• New medications are generally invented in the basic science laboratories of academia, not in the laboratories of pharmaceuticals companies.

Do the enormous profits protected by American politics help accelerate the development of new drugs? Sure, but most of the money goes toward marketing, advertising, sales representatives, and bribes (politely, physician 'education'). The huge profits can also motivate unethical behavior (e.g., Merck pushed Vioxx even after they knew it increased the risk of heart attack). Big pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) typically buys promising formulas that they hope will lead to drugs. Pharma is absolutely necessary in moving the drugs from the lab to the clinic. But don't swallow their nonsense about needing enormous profits in order to speed new drug discovery. Americans are already paying for drug discovery through basic biomedical science supported by government agencies, especially the National Institutes of Health. Venture (high risk) capital is also helpful in moving the drug to the clinic.

Since we're on the subject, Pharma shouldn't be criticized for failing to offer free drugs. Companies do not typically give away their product, yet Pharma is often pilloried for not giving away AIDS drugs to the poor, especially in Africa. If you think it's such a good idea, become a part owner! When it is some of your own money you're proposing to give away, you'll get more respect from your audience. Buy some stock and make your proposal at the next stockholders meeting.