- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
- Messages
- 49,782
- Reaction score
- 73,062
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That's a position all but two countries agree with.
That's a position all but two countries agree with.From what I understand, the reason so many drugs in the United States is because of the cost of marketing the drugs directly to consumers and patients. As far as I am concerned, the only people who need to know about and keep up-to-date with the most-recently developed drugs are actual practitioners of medicine.
Given that prices are significantly higher in the U.S., higher spending on pharmaceuticals here doesn’t necessarily imply greater usage.Anything that helps get Americans off their pharma addiction is a good thing. Americans spend ~2.5 times the OECD average on Pharma, yet have the shortest life expectancy among the wealthy countries. One of the (probably intended) side effects of constant pharma advertising is that it 'normalizes' the idea of taking pharma drugs, and we see that in American consumption rates. Pharma has become the lazy mans wellness. Don't need to lose weight, exercise more, change my diet, or change my lifestyle, just pop some more pills.
I can appreciate that in principle.I agree with all of that, I guess I just think banning direct-to-consumer advertising puts consumers more at the mercy of salesman/drug-pushing doctors. They are less likely to be aware of and ask their doctors about alternative options.
I'd rather ban the other kind of advertising you are talking about.
I have. I asked about Champix. It was prescribed and worked.I disagree, who the hell is going to ask their doctor about a drug that they saw on TV?
lol.. consumers become the new "detail men"A few reasons.
1) Pharmaceutical companies don’t include a comprehensive list of side effects and complications in these ads.
2) The audience is inappropriate. Not being a doctor, they want you as a consumer to harangue the doctors and pharmacists who slipped the hook of their reps.
That is just bizarre. No way,I have. I asked about Champix. It was prescribed and worked.
I also learned that a newer Shingles vaccine was much more effective that an earlier version I'd received.
Obviously the advertising works or they wouldn't be doing it. So enough patients are asking their doctors to make it worth while.
No way what?That is just bizarre. No way,
That anyone enjoying an evening of programming would want to ask their doctor about some drug that they saw on TV, especially with disclaimer side effects like may include weight gain, dizziness, swollen taint, and fatal car crashes. It’s bizarre that anybody would think that’s a good idea. If one has a medical problem, they’re gonna go to their doctor for advice anyway.No way what?
It would be much more passive voice than that. “Sudden death has happened after use.”What I am waiting for in these ads is for their ending comments warning about side effects to include the phrase “some people have dropped dead immediately upon taking our product.”
That anyone enjoying an evening of programming would want to ask their doctor about some drug that they saw on TV,
If one has a medical problem, they’re gonna go to their doctor for advice anyway.
An on-point physician is going to go over shingles vaccine options with a patient during a regular check up if you’re in the at-risk age group. There’s no way in hell I would ask my doctor about some rando drug I saw on TV..Well they obviously are or they wouldn't be doing the advertising.
My own example - Shingles vaccine - was not a medical problem. It was a preventive treatment for a condition I learned about via the advertising.
...I will miss ads for products that will relieve eczema but whose side effects include suicidal ideation, diarrhea, and genial warts.
The whole world besides the US and New Zealand is a mommy state?Mommy state must protect me from seeing things I shouldn't.
So you want to censor information about health care to the private individual? Why shouldn't we be aware of what's out there?Bernie Sanders and Angus King co-sponsor a bill that would prohibit consumer drug ads, echoing calls by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during his presidential campaign
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Angus King (I., Maine) introduced a bill Thursday that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.
The bill would prohibit any promotional communications targeting consumers, including through television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. It will apply to all prescription drug advertisements.
“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television,” Sanders said in a statement. “They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”
Bravo to Sanders and King! This should be a bipartisan issue. Only one other country in the world allows pharmaceutical advertising on television.
An on-point physician is going to go over shingles vaccine options with a patient during a regular check up if you’re in the at-risk age group.
There’s no way in hell I would ask my doctor about some rando drug I saw on TV..
when I’m watching television, I don’t wanna be invaded by drug ads. It’s inappropriate, and cringeworthy especially when half the commercial is talking about the side effects which may cause seizures and death.
And many don't do regular wellness visits, going only when they think they are sick. So seeing it brings it to their attention. I know the left likes to hide things from the public. Particularly the truth. Tell millionaire Bernie to shut the F up.Some do, some don't.
You keep talking about side effects. Those are a requirement and are also included in the drug's information package.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on it.
What is the harm in that advertising?
I see them on American networks that are part of my cable package.
Thanks to that advertising I know about some new pharmaceutical developments I might not have been aware of.
And yes I know my own MD should tell me about them. Some Doctors do, some don't.
Especially when they have to pay for it.And many don't do regular wellness visits, going only when they think they are sick
The entirety of the internet is available to individuals to look up potential drugs - pharmaceutical advertising is BILLIONS of dollars annually.And many don't do regular wellness visits, going only when they think they are sick. So seeing it brings it to their attention. I know the left likes to hide things from the public. Particularly the truth. Tell millionaire Bernie to shut the F up.
Well, for one thing, they're really annoying.
I guess they're just giving people information, which isn't that harmful, I reckon.
Healthcare is a business. All business is profit driven. Why we dont' want government running it? Because they don't run anything very well, waste money, favor their donors, and pay far too much for everything. The only true business the government runs is the USPS and it's always in debt and mismanaged.The entirety of the internet is available to individuals to look up potential drugs - pharmaceutical advertising is BILLIONS of dollars annually.
Who pays for that? American consumers.
If we want to move away from a profit driven healthcare system - this is a step in that direction.
People need education and information and affordable healthcare - they don’t need flashy expensive advertising.
The entirety of the internet is available to individuals to look up potential drugs
If we want to move away from a profit driven healthcare system - this is a step in that direction.
They are annoying but so are most commercials. Reverse mortgages, gambling, useless supplements, flimsy exercise equipment...all drive me nuts.
No more harmful than a doctor providing the information.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?