Re: Why are elliptical trainers so expensive?

x-no-archive:  yes

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:17:17 -0500, "GRL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Remember the Nordic Track ski machines? The standard Pro model was $600 and
>massively over-priced at that figure. The fad was strong, though, and so
>they sold for that...and more. The fad ended and Pro models sell in perfect
>shape on eBay for under $100. Nordic Track nearly went belly up when the fad
>died. (I think the parent company, CML, did.) Same will happen with
>ellipticals.

        I bought an elliptical from Smooth Fitness (online).  $899.00
shipped.

>As for the cost of drugs in the U.S., developing drugs is EXTREMELY
>expensive and risky. (I work for a company that does contract pharma.
>manufacturing and I see this every day and that's just the manufacturing
>part.) We are in the sad situation, in the U.S. that we pay for the R&D on
>new drugs for the world here because the other countries simply will not
>pay. They require lower prices and can get them because we pay for the R&D
>and the pharmaceutical companies make just manufacturing based (largely)
>profits from everybody else. Those are smaller, but not to be ignored. If it
>ever came to the point that in the U.S. paid what the rest of the world
>pays, drug development for anything other than near-sure-thing candidates
>for large markets would grind to a halt. If you think that current drug
>therapies are adequate and see no need for much new drug development, that
>would be OK.
>
>I hate paying for expensive drugs myself, but the reality is that drug
>development is very expensive and someone has to pay for it or there will be
>none. Today, that someone is us. Reality really sucks sometimes.

        It is expensive to bring a new drug to the marketplace.  No
doubt about it.  But that's not the whole story.

        Here's why pharmaceutical drugs cost so much.  It's because
the pharmaeutical companies spend 3 to 4 TIMES more on marketing and
advertising as they do on R&D.  They're currently spending $1 BILLION
dollars per MONTH on direct-to-consumer advertising.  That's about $37
million per day.  On every TV station, in every city, in every state,
you can't go 10 minutes without seeing a drug ad.  "Talk to your
doctor to see if Viagra is right for you!"   TV, radio, every
newspaper, every magazine, etc...  

        Uh, no.  I'm going to trust my M.D. to decide for me what
drugs are right for me.  Not some 30 second sound bite.

        And of course, let us not forget about the veritable army of
slick drug salesmen who come to M.D.'s offices with the gourmet
catered lunches, free toys, junkets to the carribean - and a
bottomless expense account.  Hell, they even pay for the diagnostic
equipment for med students (stethoscope, sphygmomonometer, otoscope,
othpthalmoscope, etc...).

        In 2001, the drug companies spent $49.8 million dollars and
had 623 lobbyiests to keep profits up.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/drug_industry/contribution/articles.cfm?ID=7827

        So between the direct to consumer marketing, the drug reps,
and the lobbying...it's no wonder why drugs cost so damn much.

        What?  The seniors can't afford to pay for their drugs?  Oh,
that's okay.  We'll just have Big Pharma lobby congress to add
pharmaceuticals with Medicare entitlements (that'll only cost $375
BILLION to start). 

        That's right folks.  You heard it here first.  Corporate greed
on the part of the pharmaceutical giants - with a combination of price
gouging, extensive marketing and aggressive lobbying just stuck it in
and broke it off.  AND they managed to get the U.S. Government to
subsidize the whole thing (which comes out of our tax dollars).

        Talk about the ultimate organized crime syndicate.  

        Even the Columbian cartels never were this creative.


Kevin