Drug Lobby Wins Again in Washington...

I'm pretty sure Canadian drugs are as safe as American ones are. Canada is hardly third world, IMHO.

If you're saying they're as good as US veterinary grade drugs, then you'd be correct, that being the level to which Canada does quality testing.

Does Bear own stock in GlaxoSmithKline, or something?

Nah. Learned all this when I switched to generics for my diabetes meds.

I actually know a little something about Canadian drugs, so let's just say "you're wrong" and go have some pie.

Meet me behind the drug store at 1 AM...and bring cash.

I know a bit more about the standards to which US veterinary drugs are tested for quality control, and suggest that you have some pie yourself.

1. American drug companies spend something like $800 million and 12-15 years bringing a new drug to the market.

2. The profits made in the American market for a successful drug make that risk worth taking.

3. Since the actual production of the drug is cheap (the price is for the risk and the research, not the manufacturing effort that went into the pill), drug companies can make additional revenues by selling these drugs to countries with state-run health systems at a lower cost.

4. If large quantities of the drugs produced for those other countries are re-imported into the United States, the drug companies' profits decline considerably.

5. When drug companies' profits decline, they are less motivated to undertake the risk of investing in a new drug. Therefore, fewer new drugs.

There are two problems here: one, drug companies' profits are threatened by re-importation; and two, American consumers are, in effect, subsidizing much of the rest of the world. This new law helps with problem number one, but does NOTHING for problem number two. The law takes into account the market economy, but not in a broad enough sense.

Certainly, the larger economies we import drugs into are capable of pulling more of the load. I'd rather we draw everyone into the same market...I see no reason to continue subsidizing the same Canadian who looks down his nose at our private health system while American consumers are the ones that allow his system to operate. If he had to pull his own weight, he wouldn't be quite so smug.

Some basics-

Most foreign markets have socialized medicine or price controls. All drug companies sell drugs in other countries that negotiate or regulate the terms of sale. So a $10 a pill in Canada may cost $20 in the US. [The actual ratio is generally much worse for the US.]

US markets are essentially free. So the US price is basically the market price (maybe plus a premium to make up for lower prices elsewhere). The result is that Americans are subsidizing the Europeans and Canadians, who, when it comes to big pharma, are the perfect example of an economic "free rider."

I'm pretty sure that the average cost of bringing one new medicine to market is around $500 million (I'll come back tomorrow if I remembered it wrong), and it takes an average of 12 to 15 years to discover and develop a new medicine. Most of that time is spent testing the drug to make sure it is safe. Plus, the time that companies have to recoup their investment is shrinking because of increased competition from generic drugs.

Also, from a historical standpoint, around 3 out of 10 drugs have recouped or exceeded their R&D costs. That means those three drugs must be priced so they will earn enough to recover the R&D costs of the seven drugs that were not commercial successes.

So we have a choice. The drug companies basically get their profits from the US markets. If prices drop enough, R&D investment will eventually dry up. But we really like these wonder drugs. Heart disease? Cancer? Arthritis? Lots of ills are less threatening today than just 20 years ago thanks to the billions and billions pumped into drug research.

The best solution is to free the foreign markets, but that is basically impossible. Hence the initial reasoning for the ban on imports - drug companies have to make back their investment + return from somewhere, and it was left for the US drug buyers to pay.

Typical market solutions can’t work. Usually, price discrimination between markets would be a reasonable means for a drug company to sell its drugs - they can sell AIDS drugs at cheaper prices to poorer places like Africa, for example. And just because some governments have price controls, that shouldn't preclude the drug company from selling to freer markets at a higher price. But the current ban doesn't allow these practices. Another good reason to fix the status quo, which is sub optimal.

Another solution could have been to prohibit foreign countries - by means of a common contract - from exporting. The contract can prohibit resales, limit quantities. But in the EU it is illegal for drug companies to prohibit resales. Again, the reason the US enacted the ban in the first place.

The US could just allow other countries to export their price controls into the US. But that would be very bad policy. So, eliminating the ban would be a good thing since freer markets is a good goal. But at the same time drug companies would have to be allowed to use discriminatory pricing and contract terms that sell only to the extent the drugs will be used locally. Then we wouldn’t need the ban. But the foreign countries aren’t idiots, merely socialists. They are not going to pass up the free meal at the trough of the American consumer’s pocket.

And if we lost the ban now, without the other reform, we could have all cheered about how we "beat" big pharma, then waited a couple of decades to see if it turned out to be such a smart move after all.

[See, I did all that without once pointing out what a fruitcake Xerafin must be to have gotten it all so wrong.]

Because it's in the pocket of the pharma companies.

The majority of the drugs Americans are trying to "import" from Canada are actually U.S.-patented drugs, under the U.S. or multinational pharma company label, manufactured for the most part in India and either (A) sold to American pharmacies at grossly inflated prices or (B) sold to pharmacies in other nations, notably Canada, for closer to their true market value.

The pharma companies gouge U.S. customers so they can "buy goodwill" in other countries by offering them the same drugs for less.

When you buy drugs online from a Canadian company, most of the time you're buying back American drugs.

This is what happens when you let government regulate the free market.



You people made your bed. Lie in it.

The don't gouge consumers. They charge the market price. The problem is: nowhere else does. If the prices on the American market were forced to the same level as they are elsewhere, we would have many fewer new drugs coming on the market.

If developing a new product is risky (read: expensive), there must be a commensurate reward for succeeding. Take away the reward, and you'll have fewer companies willing to take the risk.

And though you're saving a buck, you're taking away the motivation for that American company to develop new drugs.

I say we levy a tax on drugs sold to other countries equal to the difference between the street cost of that drug in those countries and the presumptive market price.

An export tariff... I like it...

More rules, regulations, taxes and tariffs are never the solution to a problem caused by rules, regulations, taxes and tariffs.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Why bullshit? When you want to sell something, don't you try to get as much as you can for it? "Gouging" is codespeak for "I don't like the market price so I feel justified to use government power to make the price more amenable to me."

Do you live in a world where rewards play no role in one's decisions?

Let me put it in concrete terms: you're an investor and you have $100 million to put into some new venture. Option A is a potentially life-saving drug, but the prospects of it succeeding are pretty small, maybe 30%, and even if it works it will be many years of testing and certification before it gets to the market. But, if it works, your investment will be worth a billion dollars. Option B is you stick your money in some mutual fund and let it earn 10% a year. You won't make as much money, but you won't have nearly the risk. In 15 years, you won't have a billion, but you'll have $3-400 million.

Now imagine the government commands: "You can't gouge anyone with your product! We're going to limit the profit you can make on it to a few percent over your investment!"

Where do you put your money?

I never knew you had such a positive view of corporations. You know, expecting them to go to all the time and trouble to develop new products solely from the goodness of their hearts! I'm so cynical for thinking they do it in order to make money...

Paladin, Paladin, Paladin...

So trusting are you of corporations, as if human venality and greed are somehow purified by said humans gathering en masse in this house of worship known as the Corporation.

^^^

So what's that creature called government you want to fix it again?

Humans gathered en masse, but with the added power of force.

Squeezed in between the greedy corporations and the corruptable government, American citiznes don't have a chance.

If humans are venal and greedy, they'll be so with or without corporations. And since corporations operating in a free market channel human ambition to outcomes people actually want, I'll say we're much better off with them than without them.

Ugh, catchphrases.
S'why, I only said bullshit.
Trying to hit the eject button on those brain turds as little as possible.

With the guy who doesn't whip up bullshit narrow scenarios to back up his worldview.

I don't trust anyone.

And I don't think a lot of our giant corporations are even capitalist anymore.

Hahahahahahhahaaaaaaa!!!

Yeah, after they're told what they want.

Use this brand of liquid bodysoap, or no one will fuck you!!

Even if a "catchphrase," it's either true or it isn't. Do you deny that people try to sell their property for the best price they can get?

It's bullshit to say that people who invest money consider risk and return in their decision-making? How do you think they do it? Flip a coin?!?

I don't trust anyone.

And I don't think a lot of our giant corporations are even capitalist anymore.[/QUOTE]
Ah...there might be the beginning of some wisdom...

Or just stupid in it's inefficiency.

Much like breaking everything down to true/false yes/no up/down 1/0.

Yes.

People sell stuff for crap prices to get rid of it all the time.

Nope, that's just the box you're trying to beat me into.
Have fun with that.

It began a long time ago.
I'm here now.

Told what we want?

I'm sure I see hundreds of commercials every week, thousands over the course of a year, tens of thousands in my lifetime. I know that Chevy trucks are built 'Like a Rock,' look forward to the next Geico caveman commerical, and instantly associate 'Can you hear me now?' with Sprint.

I don't use any of those products. If I'm being commanded to, I'm one very disobedient consumer.

If a commercial says 'this soap is the best' and you buy it, were you commanded? Or just informed? If you use it, and you keep using it, are you being obedient? Or do you merely like the result?

You're like a reverse-Hamlet: a king of infinite space who chooses to see it as a nutshell.

Everyone doesn't have to be a brand loyal zombie consumer.

Just enough. Just enough to fuck up my afternoon.

Is the light on or off?

If you jump off this building will you fall or not?

Do you have five fingers on your right hand?

Which ways does this elevator go?

One plus one equals three, true or false?

Lots of questions in life have those kinds of answers.

If one simply cared about getting rid of it, one would not set a 'crap price,' one would make it free. But I think you're trying to miss the point. How often do people sells a car or a house and not try to get the best price for it? Doesn't the best price become even more important as the item in questions gets larger and larger in value?

Do you think my statement is bullshit or not? If so, be a man and defend it. If not, admit it.

You deny reason because you don't like the outcome. Reason leads you somewhere you don't like and, even though you can't explain why, you know it must be wrong. But belief without reason is faith, my friend...

And you're not trying, you're passing with flying colors.

Ugh, remind me what point it even was anymore.
I've lost track.