Drug Lobby Wins Again in Washington...

Let us remember that this is also the guy who thinks Joe Average should be able to diagnose and dose himself without recourse to trained medical personnel, testing or prescriptions.

He holds many strange opinions indeed. He also, in marked contrast to his professed philosophy, favors a state subsidized train just because it would be useful to him.

Translation: "The extra I pay for my insulin is offset by the dividends on my pharma stocks. The Mighty Market Roolz!!11!!"

He's a techie, the rack of boards in his head can only do so much.

Just pat him on the head and go "stick to airplanes, and stay out of politics, Lindie".

He won't get the reference, and the hardrive light will blink in his left eye for a whole minute.

It's adorable.

^

"charge the true economic cost to those willing to pay?" How? The true economic cost is above the price ceiling imposed by Canada et al. If the drugs are reimported, they will be resold at or near the Canadian price, or simply bought in Canada for use here. I can see the commercials now:

*image of two fingers each balancing a pill*
"Can you tell the difference between these two pills? They're the same brand, the same prescription,"
*one finger moves out of frame camera left, camera zooms in*
"but this one costs 50% less. Call 1-800-CDN-MEDS now, and get next day delivery straight to your door."

No reason for anyone to pay the true market price, so long as the price caps exist, and people are legally able to get them. Which I've got no problem with, though I'd much rather we could force the Canadian government to remove its controls in the first place, because the high prices are putting the drugs out of reach of some people here who could afford them in a truly free market.

True, but it'll be the kind of drugs garamet is railing against, X repackaged as Y. We will see very little new R&D, and it will be mostly geriatric-targetted. Which I'm totally okay with, it's a great "free-market" way to punish the Canadian government. But I'm rather surprised you are.

No, I'm not, you illiterate fool, I'm saying that the reimportation ban or lack thereof is not the root of the problem.

If he's foolish enough to try, he should be free to kill himself with amateur medical care.

Give me one reason to disagree that's not based in collectivist "pragmatism" at the expense of individual rights.

Explain the rest of the reference.

How do you know the "true economic cost" of any drug?

Better yet, go to www .cdnmeds.com.

Government endorsed pricing is not "true market price."

Anyone who's Internet savvy can beat the system anyway. The people who suffer are the old folks who don't have computers. But who cares about them, anyway? Obviously it's their fault for growing up in the Depression and raising families instead of being self-absorbed Gen-X millionaires.

Memory circuits faulty again, eh. Guess you didn't deserve the negrep, since it's plainly a problem beyond your control.

Do you throw in some prescription meds in the daily care packages that you pass out?

Why? You know. I know. You know I know. I know you know. Waste of my time.

Prove it, share with the class.

But it is precisely the root problem. Let's go star trek analogy for a moment: a Taste of Armageddon. You sound just like the fools who preferred bizarro sanitary war that avoided the difficulty of having to find a solution. As long as the drug companies don't have to force Canada to pay the true cost (which is enabled by a protected U.S. market), then they will avoid that fight. Take away the re-importation ban, and then they are forced to take a much harder line with Canada.

I guess I'm just a bit more optimistic than you about the drug companies ability to adjust to new market conditions.

"boohoo"

"Wretchedly Illogical"

It's very easy to dismiss when you, personally, are making ends meet like a motherfucker, and everyone in your family is being taken care of.

I promise you that you will realign your perspective if some unexpected health crisis befalls your family, one which no amount of planning or life preparation could have made you ready for.

It may be lamentable, and worth a boo hoo. It may also be a neg worthy bit of illogic. Nonetheless, when your insurance tells you that your coverage isn't adequate for the disaster at hand, and you've eaten into your savings so that someone for whom you care is suffering less, you'll be ready to wear the 'boohoo' and the snide critique on the astounding lack of logic like badges.

And, perhaps, suddenly, you'll find yourself wishing that somehow, someone could have arranged for medicines to be more affordable, or at least more accessible.

Or...then again, maybe you'll stand around and take bets as to when your relative will succumb to the pain and pass out.

Let me know, I'll paypal you my stake.

So you are against the high speed train initiative in California? Feel free to renounce most of what you said in that thread, then.

I am going to say this slowly, so maybe you'll understand.

I.

Do.

Not.

Sup...port.

The.

Re...im...por...ta...tion.

Ban.

But.

I.

Do.

Not.

Think.

Get...ting.

Rid.

Of.

It.

Will.

Help.

For.

Sev...er...al.

Years.

Be...cause.

The.

Drug.

Com...pan...ies.

Will.

Not.

Have.

An...y.

Bar...gain...ing.

Pow...er.

Ag...ainst.

The.

Can...a...di...an.

Gov...ern...ment.

Un...til.

They.

Stop.

Ma...king.

New.

Drugs.

Can...a...da.

Will.

Pay.

For.


Understand now? Of course not.

That wasn't condescension, a java ad had him bottle-necking.

Well your position was never clear, but I disagree that it won't make a difference. Simple economics, I'm surprised you can't see it. I'm in fact mystified that you of all people would ever think that taking away a regulatory distortion would not lead to a more efficient price point. So, you don't support it, but you believe the lie told by big pharma. Your belief is the form that your support takes.

I might just as well say, I don't support making money but I'm keeping my paycheck.

Yes it was. Read the posts.

Of course it will. But not for a long while. The Canadian government has more power than you think. Meanwhile, getting rid of the reimportation ban effectively imposes the price ceiling on the US, which, given that it's externally imposed, is nothing the government should do anything about, but WILL have the effect of retargeting their R&D priorities to punish Canada. But the Canadian government is presumably stubborn, and this will take years to have any effect.

I swear, it's like talking to a wall. I'm saying, your economic analysis is wrong, as is your estimate of the tenacity of the Canadian government, and I don't give a shit what the pharmaceutical companies are saying.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Now, either answer my economic argument with economics, or get out of the thread. And "it's simple economics" is not an argument.

Sez you, but then you are also the guy who posts so much annoying condescension, you shouldn't be surprised if people miss what little meat there is in the statement.

Only if the pharmaceuticals are similarly stubborn, but then, they are presumably more rational than Canada, so they will seek a faster solution, which their shareholders will no doubt demand.

Yes, but it isn't wrong, so your continued repetition of the pharmaceutical party line is quite informative.

Well, I'm sorry that you can't understand the simple economics behind it. Have you heard of the price equilibrium point? Have you heard of the demand or supply curves?

^It's not simple when one of the actors is a government with an interest in a status quo which includes a distorted market.

If Canada wants Q amount of drugs at P price, that's not going to change simply because the drug companies can't make up the shortage by raising prices in the US in order to create a surplus. So the company is going to have to restructure and/or retarget its R&D, which is far, far slower than a price change given how long it takes to get new drugs to market.

What part of that is wrong?

Much better -- take out the smugness, and you can actually make a point or two.

True, it's the 800 pound gorilla. My point is that we are making it easier to ignore the gorilla. We shouldn't -- we should make the gorilla the single issue, so that attention can be focused there. We do this by allowing re-importation.

There's nothing wrong with it, but it is premised on assumption. My conclusion is also premised on assumption. Truth is, we don't know the answer, but for you to go off for several pages about how my view is economically wrong is foolish. It is economically correct if the underlying assumption is correct. You would find these debates far less frustrating if you admitted from the start that your conclusion is valid only if your premise is valid. Because to come at it from any other angle makes you come off as an arrogant schmuck.

Now, here's why I think my premise is right. We have a free trade agreement with Canada. Canada currently restricts free trade on pharmaceuticals by setting prices (note, Canada is not the buyer, just the price setter). We don't have a NAFTA basis to complain about this unfair practice, because we also restrict trade on pharmaceuticals. Once we drop our restriction, we have the leverage to push for less restriction north of the border. I've argued through this thread that the drug companies can push for fair pricing on their own, but I actually think the U.S. government will step up to the plate on that as a quid pro quo for lifting the import ban.

I am also a firm believer in the concept that unilateral trade liberalization is better for the U.S. than protectionism. We can argue that in another thread, but I suggest you read up on David Ricardo's theories.

I owe you a rep, I'll be recharged shortly.

I agree with you, eliminating the ban on reimporting drugs would be a good market solution. I'll generally support any steps that lead to a freer market. Without a ban, it sounds as if companies could just protect their interests the market way, with agreements. And I would fully support such a ban.

But although the bill would lift the ban on reimporting from certain "developed" countries (where safety concerns are not a problem), it doesn't stop there. The bill would also prohibit American companies from using contracts to defend themselves against reimportation. Companies would be prohibited from charging foreign exporters higher prices than they charge foreign firms that do not export. And they would be prohibited from limiting supplies to foreign firms that reshipped those lower-priced drugs back to the US. Neither one is a free market solution.

I didn’t read the bill myself, but I read a couple of pieces by a guy from Cato - not the same guy who wrote the article linked in darthstryke’s reply #110, but another guy at Cato called Pilon, who seemed very well informed.

It looks like Congress is unwilling to impose its own price controls on the US, but instead will indirectly import foreign imposed price controls, if the ban were to be eliminated based on the bill. If that’s the case, despite hating the ban on pure free market principles, I’d prefer to wait until a bill comes along that would lift the ban but not put the shackles on the company's ability to negotiate its own terms when it sells the drugs overseas.

The present “fix” is akin to letting the guy fight the boxing match, but then making him tie his better arm behind his back.

And Gul wants to solve the problem by enabling the gorilla.

Oh this bill may well be flawed. I'm arguing the principle.

Which gorilla? Right now we enable the Canadian gorilla.

If the re-importation ban is dropped, then maybe, just maybe, the drug companies will spend millions lobbying other gov'ts or congressional representatives here in the U.S. for more free trade in the health care industry instead of wasting the money on protectionism.