I wonder how Whistler knows what my grandmother’s income is?

I was assuming she was on the lower end of the Social Security benefit list.

Why is it you don’t feel like you should help your grandmother? Why is it that you think the rest of society owes her but you don’t?

By the way, don’t blame the drug companies, blame the physicians that are prescribing the expensive drugs. If they are just as good the doctors should be prescribing the cheaper medicine.

First off, Canada has governmental price controls on medications up there. That means that WE here in America subsidize their cheap drugs.
I will agree that Canada has price controls. But does anyone have proof that the drug companies are not making a tidy profit selling to any country with price controls? If I were a company and could not recoup my investment including R&D would stop selling to that country. Any shred of evidence anywhere that there is arm twisting for any dug company to sell their product to any country and especially to Canada at a loss? Placing restrictions on trade is not free, trade is it? Does a law exist anywhere in the USA be it federal, state or local that compels anyone in the pharmaceutical industry to sell to Canada?

Maybe you need to rethink your position cause I agree with Dorgan as well.

The health concerns are a farce, total BS. The Candadian version of FDA has as tough and sometimes tougher.

It isn’t really a matter of free trade, it’s a matter of equality and U.S. policy treating U.S. citizens differently and costing them money.

The current policy hurts Americans in the pocketbook and any Real Conservative should be for reform.

The way I look at this is that there are three things that can happen.

1. The drug companies restrict supply to Canadia. Canada restricts sales to other countries to hoard their supply.

2. The drug companies refuse to sell to Canada for those prices.

3. The drug companies realize that they can no longer expect the US market to pay for the R & D necessary for these new breakthrough drugs. They slash R & D and get rich selling the drugs that they already have. In the future we won’t have the new drugs.

Substitute any other country for Canada as it’ll happen to all of them.

I don’t know that we should restrict importation. But know it won’t work the way that Dorganoff thinks it will. The guy has no idea how markets work.

I’ve written about this several times. It’s, essentially, “drug laundering” — “washing” American-made drugs throuth the Canadian drug pricing controls. I don’t like it because it’s fundamentally dishonest — if we, as a nation, want the benefits of price controls on drugs, we should have the courage to stand up and do it openly, and not through having Canada do our work for us.

And what’s to keep our drug companies from deciding that they don’t like it, and simply pulling the plug on Canadian exports entirely? Or restricting how much the sell in Canada to cover only Canadian demand, and maybe a little more?

If we want it, we should do it ourselves. This approach is the candy-assed, coward’s way.

Gee, I think I might need to write about this yet again…

J.

The pressure is to force the pharmaceutical companies to re-price their drugs in the U.S.

That is the part that bothers me; I don’t want the govt to think it has the right to “force” anyone to do anything. I favor choice. If Canadian drugs are really cheaper, then we should be able to choose them. Why is “force” necessary? Something smells funny.

MG, when we can’t win an argument we turn vicious!

What’s vicious? You can’t argue your point so you pull out the wounded act. How childish.

But I hardly think my 89 year old grandmother is a “slacker” because she couldn’t pay $130 for one month’s worth of medication every month.

$130 is fraction of her income. Why is it you think that her medicine is the last bill to pay. Isn’t medicine a priority?

Besides if the Democrats hadn’t spent her social security contributions and allowed her to invest it instead she’d have way more that $130 in extra monthly income. You’re blaming the wrong person.

Why are you blaming the rest of us? You’ve only got one or two grandmothers. You should get a part time job so you can help her out. Or are you too greedy to take responsibility for your family?

because they NEED the life-sustaining and/or quality-of-life sustaining medications. Obviously many of you commenting have never had to choose between your meds and your groceries

Typical liberal. You’re not thankful that the drug companies created the product that you now claim you need. What if the drug companies wouldn’t have had the profit motive to create that drug. There would be no drug.

So now you want to take away the profit motive so the drug companies stop research. How can you be so cruel as to deny us the benefit of these drugs that are coming out?

I suppose you’ll claim that instead of the drug companies creating the new wonder-drugs of the future it will be the government. What’s come of the billions and billions of dollars of research money we’ve pumped into government financed research? If you think drugs are expensive now, wait until the government makes them free.

You’re a fool Groovy if you think you system will help people.

I could be wrong, but isn’t another reason Canadian drugs are cheaper is that they’re subsidized by the government as part of their socialized health care system?

But if someone with Alzheimer’s thinks Acme Drug Co. is charging too much for their drug, he’s screwed, because Acme has a monopoly on that drug! He can’t go elsewhere for it!

In your example there would be no drug except for the profit motive for Acme to invent that drug in the first place.

That doesn’t stop Bayer or Merck or Pfizer or Groovy from trying to develop a BETTER alzheimer’s drug if they can.

Frankly I’m happier than heck that Acme made that drug available and I can’t wait for their next product that will help me. God bless the profit motive!

I take several medications due to my diabetes and thyroid condition. The main drug I use for my thyroid is hard to get prescribed in the US, although it is made here. Being able to get my meds from overseas would prevent me from having to worry about a shortage, or discontinuation in the US. I know is sounds small, but when you have a drug that basically saved your life, you don’t want to NOT be able to get it.

And it’s all for political show.

WINNIPEG — A coalition of Canadian pharmacy and patient advocacy groups is asking the federal government to ban prescription drug exports to the United States.

In a letter to Health Minister Tony Clement, the group said today that the issue is urgent because high-ranking U.S. Democrats have said legalizing imports from Canada will be a priority for the new Congress.

Louise Crandall, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, said Canadian patients could face widespread drug shortages if large U.S. chains suddenly started filling prescriptions with Canadian drugs.

The reimportation of prescription drugs is being pushed not only by big government regulators but also by misguided free market advocates. The result: the effective imposition of foreign price controls on U.S. drug markets and the further erosion of genuine competition. But the cost could be worse than money. Governments that control drug prices routinely sacrifice their people’s health in order to save money.

From this IPI report (pdf file).

The reason more Republicans don’t make this argument is they don’t trust voters to understand economics or fear the issue’s demogoguery by populist demogogues like Dorgan.

The difference is that I described what will happen when the economically-challenged socialists continue to do what is not in the interest of their taxpaying citizens, in service of their social engineering agenda. All the difference in the world.
You see, you think the socialists care about the economic consequences of their actions; if they really did, they wouldn’t be socialists. In socialism, the economic system is slave to the social goals. They “care” about furnishing cheap drugs, no matter what the cost to their taxpayers. They will probably ignore the consequences of expanded marketing in the US, thinking that they are winning us over to their socialist ways, while we suck them dry, due to their ignorance of simple economic truth.
We will see.

What does the FDA think about it. I am sure the FDA will have to get their paws on it before it would be allowed???

Ellinas have you claimed to be a doctor yet.
The Whistler on November 25, 2006 at 01:01 am
You are right whistler, But ifi was I would love to examine your brain.
Robert read: You: “will eventually have to stop”
I:”prohibit selling to foreigners”
I have narrowed it a bit to make it easier to understand.

Any proof that the drugs Canadian pharmacies sell to their US customers are subsidized by the Canadian tax payer?

It’s a socialized healthcare system! That means the whole thing is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, by definition. The point was made by someone else that as they sell more to US customers, they will incur economic harm, and will eventually have to stop. The govt in a socialist system doesn’t care how much they rip off their taxpayers, as they are doing it 24/7 anyway. Socialism doesn’t work precisely because of the sort of economic stupidity you describe.

Witness the brownouts and rolling blackouts California was afflicted with after instituting price controls on energy.

That’s just something stupid liberal socialists tell themselves to excuse the failure of price controls.
Rob on November 24, 2006 at 12:24 pm

No! That is what, someone ignorarant of the situation in California would say, whitout having taken the time to avail himself to the facts.

Woof…I agree to some extent there needs to be safety control on drugs. What I don;t agree with is the way in which the FDA handles it…

ellinas: You missed the economic point. If Canada is vending the drugs through their own program for less than what they paid for them, than someone has to make up the difference, and they are the Canadian taxpayers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the drug companies make that are selling to Canada; in fact, if they didn’t make a profit(what is your definition of a “tidy” profit, btw?), then they wouldn’t sell to Canada, so that is a given.
If Canada is selling below their own cost, selling more drugs by expanding their market will only increase their loss, resulting in an even larger ripoff of their own taxpayers. This is why socialist economies tend to be stagnant; they don’t want to increase their sales.

There goes cheap drugs in Canada. If this passes, it will only drive up prices…

Groovy? Why don’t you explain to these customers that they can recieve substantial discounts from pharmaceutical companies by enrolling in their discount programs? Why do you insist that their only recourse is government funded medical aid? Is your agenda on too tight?

Oh, I thought I was talking about the high price of prescription drugs in the USA, not “those who live off the efforts of the productive.” Go back to your kool-aid, r108, and calm down. (GEEZ!)

Dr. Ellinas: No we won’t.

Not to mention they are “experts” on every subject.
However They don’t mention how their loved ones get their meds.

Also, I don’t think that my (or anyone else’s) tax dollars should be going for a service I will never benefit from, like the rebuilding of New Orleans. Or drought releif in North Dakota. Or to help mop up all the forest fires we usually end up with out west every summer. Etc. Unless you are either affected by a situation or benefit from it in some way, you really shouldn’t have to pay for it.

I smell the powerful odor of mendacity!

I think you meant relatively high, not artificially high. Or at least I would like to think so.

Unlike in another thread, I agree with r108 on this one… it’s really not right for people who will never use the drugs to have to pay for a portion of them.

Also, I don’t think that my (or anyone else’s) tax dollars should be going for a service I will never benefit from, like the rebuilding of New Orleans. Or drought releif in North Dakota. Or to help mop up all the forest fires we usually end up with out west every summer. Etc. Unless you are either affected by a situation or benefit from it in some way, you really shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Hey, you’re the one smelling things, not me. Unless, of course, you’re being mendacious.

ellinas: I concede your superior knowledge and experience on the subject of ass-biting.

I’m not at all saying the price of drugs should be spread out to all taxpayers (BTW, it already is – drug companies make a fortune off Medicare & Medicaid, and who pays for that? Taxpayers.) No, my point is the price-gouging; the drug company gets a MONOPOLY on it’s drug for many years, and they make a figgin’ greedy fortune on it. Medications are under government control, the FDA; drug prices are not, but need to be. I know first hand that many of the drug assistance programs that are offered now-a-days are a joke; the discounts are not substantial. The drug companies are only offering them because they are guilted into it; they know that consumers are catching on to how much profit are in these drugs; they think it makes them look good and compassionate. They have many, many people by the balls, because they NEED the life-sustaining and/or quality-of-life sustaining medications. Obviously many of you commenting have never had to choose between your meds and your groceries; we’re not talking about luxury items like cell phone, ipods, cars – we’re talking about medications. Any of you ever have cancer? Diabetes? HIV? Check out the prices of the drugs that are constantly being advertised; you’ll be shocked. It’s a national disgrace.

I guess you don’t know what “mendacity” means.

likwidshoe on November 27, 2006 at 11:34 pm said: Which just happens to explain how the 1994 Uruguay Round world trade agreement works.
Well lik I tried hard looking through the 26000 pages for a clause like the author of the article sugests but I could find none. I found however that our government fought real hard for the protection of intellectual property and got concessions. As an example patents for products that US compnies hold were extended from 20 years to 25.

Whens the last time that anyone went to Greece for their fine socialized medical care?
The Whistler on November 27, 2006 at 11:31 pm

Hell if I know.
Whistler why would you ask a stupid question like that?
You still have not answered about the free proctological exam.
By the way ever been to Greece?

ellinas asked, If I were a company and could not recoup my investment including R&D would stop selling to that country.

You would, if you weren’t a pharmaceutical company getting blackmailed in order to prop up failing socialist schemes.

Any shred of evidence anywhere that there is arm twisting for any dug company to sell their product to any country and especially to Canada at a loss?
Placing restrictions on trade is not free, trade is it? Does a law exist anywhere in the USA be it federal, state or local that compels anyone in the pharmaceutical industry to sell to Canada?

Same link as above.

GroovyPKP squawks over and over again “greed”. While doing so, he doesn’t look at the cost of creating new drugs. He doesn’t realize that the average drug cost from research and development to market is in the ballpark of 750 million dollars. He doesn’t look at the many years of schooling that people put in to become researchers and the expectation that they will be paid for their expertise. He doesn’t realize that many of the drugs are expensive to develop and are then marketed to a small market, meaning that the companies won’t recoup costs. He doesn’t factor in the many millions of research that goes nowhere (can be looked at as a positive because they then know what doesn’t work). He doesn’t factor any of that in. It’s all easier just to demonize and claim “greed”.

For the third time, I was replying to your accusation that our drug prices are due to “greed”. I have made that clear, along with the reasons I have for doing so. Not only that, but I gave an example of what real greed is. If you don’t understand any of that after I have explained it three times, you probably just don’t want to.
Our prices are higher than those of Canada, because Canada creates an artificially low price by shifting some of the cost to its taxpayers, who may not ever use those drugs. This seems unjust to me; I think the people who use the drugs should pay for them, not the people who don’t use the drugs.

GroovyPKP asserts, -I never said drug co.’s are selling to Canada at a LOSS, just not at the gouged price they get in the USA.
-I never said I wanted to take away the profits of the drug co’s, just the price-gouging.

What “price-gouging”? That is just your opinion.

-So no one answered the question: When’s the last time YOU had to choose between your meds & your groceries? When’s the last time one of your loved ones had to, like your dear grandmother, perhaps? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

If you can’t reason your way out of your messy position, appeal to emotion.

-I ain’t no damned liberal.

You’re full of bluster, armed with few facts, appeal to emotion over logic, and are quick to paint those you deem to be “price-gouging” as “greedy” – you’re definitely not a classical liberal, but you sure argue like a contemporary one.

Read sentence #3 there, Skippy.

Try appealing to reason and logic while eschewing the emotional outbursts. It just might be that nudge you need to begin your understanding of the problems that the health care industry both faces and undertakes.

Or…you could continue the assumptions and demonizations. Your choice.

So Whistler, if my pharmacy is charging too much for meds, customers can go to one of the dozens of OTHER pharmacies at their disposal. But if someone with Alzheimer’s thinks Acme Drug Co. is charging too much for their drug, he’s screwed, because Acme has a monopoly on that drug! He can’t go elsewhere for it! He has no options, except suffering.
We aren’t talking about companies who make video games or cell phones, who cares how much profit they make? We’re talking about medications; why should we pay out huge big bucks for meds so that some execs at Acme Drug Co. can have a 3rd airplane instead of just 2 airplanes?

And since you ignored it, I’ll repeat myself again: read sentence #3 in my Nov 26, 12:19 am response.

Read sentence #3 there, Skippy.

Yeah, let’s torpedo the drug companies and go back to poultices and witch doctors.

Yes, that will work out better for Groovygreed. That way he can have is poutice and his cable TV.

Choice is so hard.

GroovyPKP keeps up the charade, You goofball! Sentence #3 says: “Yes, the drug manufacturers need to make a little money to recoup what it cost them to make the drug, and yes, they need to make a little to fund research of more drugs…”

Oh, forgive my miscount there.

Pretty sad that you only have an argument if you misquote me and misstate what I’ve said.

Really? Is that all you got out of my comments? Where was this misquoting and misstating again?

Care to tell me the essential difference or differences in meaning that you were trying to convey between sentence number three and sentence number four?

For easy access and so you don’t play this stupid game again, here is your comment with only sentences three and four included.

Yes, the drug manufacturers need to make a little money to recoup what it cost them to create the drug, and yes they need to make a little to fund research of more drugs, but do they need to be receiving exhorbitant salaries, benefits, and bonuses? SO much of the drug profits go into the pockets of the CEO’s and the drug reps, and everyone in between has their hands in the till.

It looks like you were pretty much making the same point in those two sentences. A point that has been addressed ad nauseum already.

You have no argument and this is why you address none of the points that various members of this thread have brought up.

But keep on living up to that six year old behavior! I sure called that one. Now you can call me a “meanie” or something while stomping your feet and saying, “you don’t understand”.

…if my pharmacy is charging too much for meds…

You mean “more than you want to pay”? How do you make that determination? How valuable are those meds to you? You don’t really know much about economics, do you?

“you are certainly entitled to your own opinions…” Well, Bingo! Yes I am! I wonder how Whistler knows what my grandmother’s income is?
Hey, if you guys don’t mind paying too much for medications that could cost a lot less, then great! If you don’t mind that your tax money is paying $9/pill for Medicaid & Tricare recipients to have Viagra, when you could be paying only half that, more power to ya! But some of us, who are informed, MIND!
Prilosec, over the counter: $25 for a box of 48 pills, but the prescription generic, omeprazole (same thing!) costs $88; no price gouging there!
Enbrel, 1 month’s worth, $796; chump change!
Tamiflu: $90 , Lipitor: $121 , Advair: $189 , Xopenex – less than 1 month’s worth: $390 – what a bargain.
Procrit-for those with cancer- 1 box: $1,896
Caduet: $158 , Kytril: $1,727 , Celebrex: $299
This is interesting: Niaspan, for 1 month’s worth, is $71 -but guess what it is? It is niacin, which you can get over the counter for under $10, for 100 pills – nope, no greed to be found anywhere.

So, Whistler, answer the question.

Totally nice lack of a substantive argument groovy.

There actually isn’t that much of a problem. There are tens of millions of people like you that care SOOO much that I’m sure they’ll adopt a needy person and pay for their prescriptions.

That’d be a perfect solution as it wouldn’t take away the incentive to produce more wonder-drugs.

You don’t have a clue about what goes on in pharmacies every day, do you? Obviously, if this wasn’t an issue, a real issue, we wouldn’t even be discussing it here, would we? People wouldn’t be wondering how they could get their meds from Canada, would they?

Groovy: Have you ever run your own business, or even managed one for someone else? Have you ever done the work of capitalizing a business, securing the building or buildings, selected the machinery, bought the raw materials, arranged transportation, figured out the financials, hired and paid the workers and marketed your product? Or have you simply stocked shelves in a pharmacy or drugstore? You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they sound extremely uninformed to me. Incidentally, I have done all those things I questioned you about, and have done them many times. Your conclusions demonstrate basic ignorance of the process of running a business.

The first step towards curing a mental illness is to get everything out in the open.

We’ve made a lot of progress today.

You ASSume no one in the family is helping her!

Then why do you want to tear down the system to help her? Doesn’t make sense to me.

they’re too proud to ask for help

They’re too proud to get help from their family but not to proud to accept money coerced from my family? Maybe they have a different defination of proud than I do.

You ASSume no one in the family is helping her! Of course I would buy her anything she wants, but people her age don’t tell anyone they’re going without their meds – they are too proud. Fortunately, my aunt helps her with her meds; and when she found out she was going without, she took care of getting an alternative prescribed; if it had no alternative, the whole family would of course see that she got it. But again, many people, especially the elderly, don’t know they can ask for alternatives, they don’t know how to go on-line and sign up for the “assistance” programs, they’re too proud to ask for help, or they don’t have any family members helping them. The whole healthcare situation is very screwed up when good Americans are unable to afford meds that are over-priced (my opinion) and illegals get the shit for free. You wouldn’t believe how many un-insured customers we get who bring in prescriptions for the most expensive meds; we ask, “does your Dr know you don’t have Rx insurance?” and they say “yeah, I told him!” (or her) What’s considered not expensive to a well-to-do Dr is a far cry from what most people would consider to be not expensive.

GroovyPKP said, Of course I would buy her anything she wants, but people her age don’t tell anyone they’re going without their meds – they are too proud.

So your grandmother is going to let her pride kill her.

In this case, her pride could very well be deadly.

ellinas – good job of bringing absolutely nothing to the table. You bring none of this “truth” you speak of and instead just snipe from the sidelines.

I don’t remember saying I wanted to tear the system down…???
Who says she wants to accept money coerced from your family? SHE hasn’t said anything here, she doesn’t want that, and I don’t want anything from your family either, I want stuff from the rich pharmaceutical companies’ families!! I want everything they have, all for me me me!! The truth has finally come out!!

Yes, I read that the first time ellinas. No need to repost it.

I was speaking of your comments from here on down.

Damn it Robert108 are you stll up? Dude go to bed an get some rest.
Goodnight!!!!!!!!!!!

Other countries, such as Canada, negotiate prices with drug companies to get a lower price. Since we can’t really do that in the U.S., neither politically nor (probably) legally, drug companies charge what the market will bear. So, the whole “opening up the importation of cheap drugs” is more of a back door way of instituting price controls.

Ok, now that makes sense. Canada has price caps on prescription drugs so if Americans were allowed access to those prices it would basically apply Canadian price fixing to America’s prescription drug market.

I can see where that would sound attractive, but I would think that would result in less profit for the drug companies and thus less innovation and advancement in new medicines.

I’m beginning to see where this is a bad idea.

You know, even if the Republicans are basing their decision to oppose access to Canadian drugs on money from the “big drug” lobby, it’s still the right decision.

Allowing access to Canadian drugs imports Canada’s price controls. And price controls are never a good thing. Witness the brownouts and rolling blackouts California was afflicted with after instituting price controls on energy.

I have the facts. California had price controls on energy and environment regulations that prevented power companies from expanding capacity to meet demand. That lead to brownouts and rolling blackouts.

You can try to blame it all on Enron if you want, but you’re just going to look like even more of an idiot.

Artificially high?

Who are you to tell a private company what it can charge for its product?

To some extent the markewt needs to be controlled.

Safety, purity , patents and more.

Otherwise it’s the crack/heroin market on the corner.