Big Pharmaceutical Company 's
The biggest contradiction in the cycle of life is the beginning of the end, that is, as humans we are born to die. The diseases and sicknesses we contact throughout our lifetime are evidence of the impending end from the beginning. In the 21st century, however, healthcare is not some superstitious, voodoo nonsense we leave to fate. It’s a right available to every citizen living within a democracy or free government. In America there are various loopholes within the framework of the health system, evident from a survey carried out in 2006 that showed a nationwide decrease in satisfaction with the United States Health care system (Helman, Greenwald, and Fronstin 2). This framework is an intricate network built by …show more content…
On the issue of drug price control, the stance of the patients or consumers is very clear, high prices hurt them financially and make health care inaccessible. A poll carried out as recently as 2015, find out that 72% of the American public found health care prices “unreasonable” (Dijulio, Firth and Brodie). CEO of a newly acquired Turing pharmaceuticals had recently increased the price of an old drug to about 5000% percent of the initial price without any significant change in the state of the drug (Kliff). This case of “overpriced” drugs are the reason for a lot of paranoia amongst the consumers and provide a reasonable argument to the decision of pharmaceutical companies to increase drug prices for research. A study as recent as 2009, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, concluded that about 45,000 deaths annually were a result of lack of health coverage, two and half times higher than a previous study done in 2002 by the Institute of Medicine (Cecere). This provides justification for the position consumers take on the case of drug …show more content…
The efficiency has added to already existing drugs as well as cheaper ways to create older drugs and consequently, cheaper ways to distribute them are pros of the pharmaceutical companies’ stance on the issue and are very vital in a world battling newer diseases and the potency of the older ones not eliminated. The cons, however, are the increasing costs of drugs and the effect the cost of health services in hospitals. Increase in drug prices makes it harder for lower and middle class to access health care and thus leads to a higher death rate caused by lack of health coverage (Cecere). The Pros of the consumers’ stance on drug prices are simple, affordable health care and consequently, improvement in the health conditions of American citizens. The downside of lower drug prices would be low profit from the companies and government dependence on research. It’s easy to see why a conflict of interest ensues within the health system as the pros and cons of each stakeholder’s stance counterbalance each
The biggest contradiction in the cycle of life is the beginning of the end, that is, as humans we are born to die. The diseases and sicknesses we contact throughout our lifetime are evidence of the impending end from the beginning. In the 21st century, however, healthcare is not some superstitious, voodoo nonsense we leave to fate. It’s a right available to every citizen living within a democracy or free government. In America there are various loopholes within the framework of the health system, evident from a survey carried out in 2006 that showed a nationwide decrease in satisfaction with the United States Health care system (Helman, Greenwald, and Fronstin 2). This framework is an intricate network built by …show more content…
On the issue of drug price control, the stance of the patients or consumers is very clear, high prices hurt them financially and make health care inaccessible. A poll carried out as recently as 2015, find out that 72% of the American public found health care prices “unreasonable” (Dijulio, Firth and Brodie). CEO of a newly acquired Turing pharmaceuticals had recently increased the price of an old drug to about 5000% percent of the initial price without any significant change in the state of the drug (Kliff). This case of “overpriced” drugs are the reason for a lot of paranoia amongst the consumers and provide a reasonable argument to the decision of pharmaceutical companies to increase drug prices for research. A study as recent as 2009, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, concluded that about 45,000 deaths annually were a result of lack of health coverage, two and half times higher than a previous study done in 2002 by the Institute of Medicine (Cecere). This provides justification for the position consumers take on the case of drug …show more content…
The efficiency has added to already existing drugs as well as cheaper ways to create older drugs and consequently, cheaper ways to distribute them are pros of the pharmaceutical companies’ stance on the issue and are very vital in a world battling newer diseases and the potency of the older ones not eliminated. The cons, however, are the increasing costs of drugs and the effect the cost of health services in hospitals. Increase in drug prices makes it harder for lower and middle class to access health care and thus leads to a higher death rate caused by lack of health coverage (Cecere). The Pros of the consumers’ stance on drug prices are simple, affordable health care and consequently, improvement in the health conditions of American citizens. The downside of lower drug prices would be low profit from the companies and government dependence on research. It’s easy to see why a conflict of interest ensues within the health system as the pros and cons of each stakeholder’s stance counterbalance each