• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Glaxo threatens govt's with "unintended consequences"


poolfan81

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
955
Glaxo threatens Govts with 'unintended consequences' | BreakingNews.ie

Glaxo has threatened governments across europe who are looking to cut medical expenses that there may be "unitended" consequences

Another example of a large multinational company holding a gun to governments head

The power these companies have, the monopoly they enjoy is too large

We are trying to cut are expenses and these companies forecast "unintended consequences", whether they be job losses, business going elsewhere to set up etc

These companies and the lobbyists/economic adivsors are however more than happy for "reforms" to occur elsewhere in the economy as long as it doesnt affect their profits
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,978
The main danger with cutting the profits of pharma companies is that they will cut back on research. There is already a tendency among the majors to acquire smaller companies rather than develop products from scratch
 

bob3367

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
8,083
The main danger with cutting the profits of pharma companies is that they will cut back on research. There is already a tendency among the majors to acquire smaller companies rather than develop products from scratch
Or buy a big one, like Pfizer "merged"with Wyeth.....
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
Tough luck for them- the health service is not supposed to be run for them.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,978
Tough luck for them- the health service is not supposed to be run for them.
Unfortunately, they are the ones who develop the new treatments, if it becomes less profitable, they will spend less.
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
Tough luck for them- the health service is not supposed to be run for them.
Yes, they should know the health service is there for the benefit of consultants, pharmacists, nurses, porters and paper shufflers.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

The main danger with cutting the profits of pharma companies is that they will cut back on research. There is already a tendency among the majors to acquire smaller companies rather than develop products from scratch
But is their sustainability not dependant on having a new stream of patents coming along all the time? If they come to depend excessively on generics they won't last long.
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,869
Tough luck for them- the health service is not supposed to be run for them.
Unfortunately, it is. Funny everyone was giving out about Pharmacists yet the high prices "negotiated" by Mary Harney persisted. Multinationas know they hold the cards and can make governments do anything, that is the joy of being that big. Our health budgets are run for these companies to maximise profit.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Yes, they should know the health service is there for the benefit of consultants, pharmacists, nurses, porters and paper shufflers.
Not at all - as any American will tell you it is there for the benefit of the Insurance companies and the rest of the "Healthcare" industry.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,978
But is their sustainability not dependant on having a new stream of patents coming along all the time? If they come to depend excessively on generics they won't last long.
That is what they have been at, looking for good patents to buy rather than developing their own. It's not a major concern yet but with more mergers among the majors, the r&d pool becomes smaller.
 

robut

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
8,756
Glaxo issued the warning as it announced moves to overhaul its European business to weather difficult trading conditions.

It said it was unclear if there would be any impact on jobs and would give further details of the review before the end of the year.

But it stressed it continued to expect to increase staff numbers over the next two years in the UK, where it is headquartered and currently employs around 15,000 people.
Mmmm, is this a vailed threat against Irish Plants amongst others? Ringaskiddy in Cork, Dungarvan in Waterford?

Ringaskiddy plant 2 or 3 years ago already had a big cull with loses and people retiring early on huge packages. They are taking on currently I think but could they decide to pull out the Irish operation and shift it across the water to the UK?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17573

That is what they have been at, looking for good patents to buy rather than developing their own. It's not a major concern yet but with more mergers among the majors, the r&d pool becomes smaller.
And with a smaller r&d pool the companies will concentrate on quick hits and big returns rather than carrying out research based on real medical need? In which case, it would surely become necessary for more research to be located in universities and funded by government?
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,978
And with a smaller r&d pool the companies will concentrate on quick hits and big returns rather than carrying out research based on real medical need? In which case, it would surely become necessary for more research to be located in universities and funded by government?
It's a bit like oil exploration, there are many failures for every success, is that really how you want your taxes spent? Anyway, it really depends on what the U.S. does.
 

robut

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
8,756
BBC News - Glaxo invests £500m in UK and builds new factory

Glaxo said it was "one of the largest commitments to the UK life-sciences sector in recent years".

The firm said its decision was influenced by tax cuts confirmed in this week's Budget.
Glaxo made its announcement after Chancellor George Osborne confirmed in the Budget on Wednesday that the government would go-ahead with the introduction a so-called patent box.

These allow corporations to pay a lower rate of tax on profits generated from UK-owned intellectual property.
PATENT BOX:

The so-called Patent Box is a reduced level of corporation tax on profits attributed to patents and similar types of intellectual property.

The chancellor confirmed in the Budget that it will come into effect from April 2013, introducing a lower rate of 10%. By contrast, the main rate of corporation tax rate will be 23% from that time.
That patent box lower % rate is more competitive than our corporation tax rate?
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
Don't be silly, they are speaking in a European context
Well screw GSK- there are plenty of up and coming Pharmaceutical companies in India and China, and if GSK doesn't want to develop new drugs, there are plenty of others who will. Also, innovation is not dependant on taxpayers paying massively over the odds for drugs. If it was, then there wouldn't have been any innovation to start with.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

It's a bit like oil exploration, there are many failures for every success, is that really how you want your taxes spent? Anyway, it really depends on what the U.S. does.
As a matter of interest how do pharmas prioritise research - for example do illnesses that affect only relatively small numbers tend to be de-priotirised?
 
Top