The Instigator
kenito001
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 3516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (11)

 

kenito001

Pro

Drug patent time limits are defined as the 15 years given to the inventor or developer of a prescription drug to have exclusive rights to selling and distributing the drug without having to compete with generic brands of their product. This allows prescription drug manufacturers to artificially raise prices, slow down the process of research and development, and to eliminate all competition for an overly extended period of time.

Drug patent time limits are benefical in allowing drug producers to be rewarded and compensated for their research in developing new medicines, however, by allowing an overly extended amount of time, it is slowing down the progression of modern medicine and defeating American capitalism through excessive regulation.

In a capitalist society, the government should only regulate to the point where there is an incentive to produce. That point lies where the firm initially begins to earn economic profits. A perfectly competitive industry allows other companies to enter the industry at this point. At this point there are only variable costs and the costs of production should be equal between corporations. Now the firms may ablely compete for the purchasing powers of its citizens. The fatally flawed drug patent hinders this from happening.
The affirmative proposes a system that will oppose the Con's case supporting the status quo: 7 years would be alloted as a drug patent, with the normal abilities of extension being available to the corporation. The average extension ranges from 5 to 7 years, giving a total estimated patent to the pharmaceutical corporation of 12-14 years, in comparison to the 25-27 years that you are defending. The appeals process, which is legal and cannot be banned without being in contradiction of many standing laws, is a permanent fixture in the system.

The drug patents lead the consumer to believe that, due to its excessive period of exclusive rights, that generic drugs are inferior to their original drug, while they are in fact the exact same product.

Allowing for the abuse of the drug patent system while corporations continue to amount massive profits is monopolistic and unhealthy for both the American economy and the future of American medicine and pharmaceuticals. Modern American capitalism with government regulation holds anti-trust laws that prevent patents from being absolute. If the best drug is to survive, then it is with respect to generic drugs. However, generic drugs are equal to the original drug, so the competition playing field is relatively equal.

A National Center for Policy Analysis study criticized this corporate splurging, and cited that less than 1/3 of profits are spent towards research in development, in comparison to over 50% on advertisement during the original time of the patent. However, during the last 3 years of the drug's exclusive rights overall, the corporation actually increases its advertising spending heading in to the surfacing of generic drugs.

In terms of the incentives for the Affirmative's plan, the incentive to create lies in the company's ability to maximize profits over a period of time, but making this period of time shorter would not act as a disincentive. Even after the profit maximization, they still hold the upperhand in the opinion of the consumers and usually tend to charge more than the generic drugs will charge, despite the bioequivalency of the two drugs and the equally similar costs of production. An economic incentive is given even if the drug manufacturer is given a few months to exclusively market and sell its drug.

Thanks,
The Colonel
Kleptin

Con

Pharmacy student here.

I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something.

Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there.

First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think.

Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. "They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug?

Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one.

To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
kenito001

Pro

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

Okay, my opponent has not only forfeited his last round but has also forfeited the chance to respond late, as I have given him an extra 2 days to respond in the comment section. My arguments still stand. My opponent's arguments have all been responded to either directly or indirectly.

I reiterate: Drug patent time limits are VITAL for any new pharmaceuticals to come on the market. If anything, they should be extended. Some drugs should even be eligible for large government grants, in my opinion. It all has to do with how drugs go from the chemistry text to the pharmacy shelves.
Debate Round No. 2
kenito001

Pro

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

Nothing much to say. My opponent ran off and never came back.

Quick recap:

My opponent makes a few valid points about the drug companies but does not have a good grasp on the full consequences, shortening the patent limits would be much, MUCH worse for all Americans in general. All the reasons why are in my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Sweatycreases is actually right, it is ironic coming from me XD

But then again, this is one of the few topics I have an ACTUAL opinion about.
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
"I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something."

I FIND THIS AMUSING COMING FROM KLEPTIN OF ALL PEOPLE.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Voters won't necessarily see it, though. And people might flood it off the first page of comments. Malicious people like me.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
You can write it in the comment section and I'll respond.
Posted by kenito001 8 years ago
kenito001
woah i missed the deadline sorry
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
kenito, I'm debating whether or not I should take this. If I took it, I would not be advocating the status quo, but would have my own superior advocacy. It looked like you were banking on Con supporting the status quo, so I probably won't take it, unless you have no qualms with me supporting a counteradvocacy rather than the status quo.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by uiop 8 years ago
uiop
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
kenito001KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03