Drug Lobby Wins Again in Washington...

Hey, gul.

Well, it can also cause you to bend and contort into unfathomable, ridiculous positions to maintain logical consistency as well...which is rather amusing!

"Two audiences" is not an explanation. Either be specific, or say nothing at all.

He was specific. The fact that you don't get it is not his responsibility.

I listed both audiences. I'm afraid I can't be more specific about both audiences than giving the actual names of the two groups. Perhaps you have a different definition of specific than what is commonly accepted? I'm an educated man, but I can't be expected to know which dictionary you've pulled out of your ass this time.

I want to know why the US is the one that pays for the R&D and the rest of the world isn't.

What makes you think you or anyone else is owed an answer?

AARP and the drug lobby. That doesn't explain at all why the US would pressure Canada after removing the reimportation ban.

How is it that everybody else can see the obvious? Should I spell it out for you in big bold letters?

Congress

Wants

Drug

Lobbyists

to

be

happy!

Congress

wants

old

voters

to

be

happy!

Congress

gives

the

old

re-importation.

Congress

gives

the

lobbyists

help

with

Canada.

Poor people really suck.

We should do something about them.

Deport them to Mexico or some shit.

You don't think the most powerful lobby in Washington will try and get Canada and other nations to lift restrictions on pricing if the re-importation ban is dropped?!? If they don't, they WILL suffer here. Either they will force negotiations or they will stop selling those drugs in other nations (or find some other creative way around the situation). As long as the ban stands, they have no reason whatsoever to do anything but business as usual, which in this case, is screwing the American consumer.

Why does Congress want the drug lobby to be happy any more than the Canadian Parliament? Especially when the drug lobby doesn't significantly affect the vote though old people do, and successfully pressuring Canada is going raise prices in the US?

I mean hell, think of the anti-incumbency campaign commercials:

"First he voted to give you cheaper prescriptions. But then, he gave in to to big pharma and made those good prices a fleeting memory. Who's side is <Senator> on? Can you really trust him?

Old woman: My pills cost me only a hundred dollars a month after the ban was lifted. Now, it's back up to three-fifty.

<Senator> betrayed your trust. It's time for a new voice in Washington. <Challenger>, someone you can trust to always be on your side.

<Challenger>: I'm <Challenger> and I approve of this message.

Paid for by the <Challenger> for Senator campaign."

And THAT is why Canada needs to be dealt with first, or by the drug companies themselves. It's much easier to sell to the public that you got prescription prices to drop by $50 per month as opposed to getting prices to drop by $300 per month and then getting them raised $250 per month.

No, I'm saying they will try, and fail. The one thing a Congresscritter cares most about is getting reelected. Fighting for higher prices, after fighting for lower ones, isn't on ANYONE'S Top 500 Ways to Get Reelected list.

They won't stop selling them period. That'll cause resentment when they start again. And how are they supposed to force negotiations? Canada is in the superior position. They can't raise prices, they can only stop making new drugs of interest to Canada, which will take several years if they don't want to waste the R&D dollars that have gone in already.

No shit, sherlock, that's what I've been saying. But CONGRESS has an incentive to pressure Canada ONLY while the ban stands, even if the incentive is countered by lobbying. Drug companies have an incentive to pressure Canada only AFTER the ban is gone, but it will take several years to do so.

So what you're saying is that because the drug industry has become reliant on the re-importation ban for their ridiculous drug pricing scheme and is possibly (or probably) unable to deal with the consequences of removing it, that the gov't should continue to essentially subsidize the industry with the protection of it by upholding the ban? Were you arguing the same thing with the bailout of the airline industry following 9/11?

I'm surrounded by illiterates, I really am...

No, I'm saying that if you want to leave it up to the government, it needs to be done with the ban in place. Me, I'd rather leave it up to the drug companies (which requires getting rid of the ban), even though it'll take several years to get results, and that your trust in government to act after the ban has been lifted is misplaced.

Perhaps they do.

But someday, as I recently have, you'll be backed into a corner were your Robocop list of directives will have you frozen, and then your inner hanging Hardigan will simply cry out "no!", and then the big gray directive-less asswhupping will commence.

At least I hope.

Maybe you'll stay in the logic loop as logic troops eat your babies, I dunno.

And speaking of big grey asswhupping...

*Crams a magnet in O2C's circuit boards and watches him thrash*
Fry, fuckin robot.

Do you currently see the gov't doing a damned thing now to negotiate with other countries? What is their incentive to do so? I really don't get what you are talking about here, because I see no action whatsoever.

I think the drug lobby is more powerful than you give it credit for, considering how many politicians are currently in its pockets. I think lifting the ban will be sufficient motivation to get those politicians to do whatever they can to try and appease the drug lobbyists.

If the drug companies are only making marginal profits from sales to other nations and say 90% of their profits from the U.S. market, I don't see how it would be incredibly detrimental for them to stop selling drugs in other nations. Also, they can use this threat as bargaining power in other nations, since you'll have a lot of upset citizens in those nations if their drug of choice is suddenly pulled.

If you can't afford medicine, you deserve to die.

In fact, I hope you do.

I never claimed to behave 100% rationally. I just refuse to see logic discarded outright in favor of emotion-subjugated pragmatism. "This is what most of us feel is the right thing to do, and this is the most effective way to acheive that end."
FUCK YOUR GODDAMN "FEELINGS"!!!

*Pulls the Borg power cables out of Ramen's neck*
You too.

Nope, I'm Q, and I just snapped my fingers and gave you herpes.

Scratch, bitch.

I'm R always have been.

Poop your pants.

Every case is different.

Sometimes, being irrational is the most rational thing in the world.

And every so often, it even takes a little batshit to get things done.

That is illogical...

Starry-eyed utopian.
They let you watch too many Disney films as a kid, didn't they?
Well, don't ever change, Don Quixote.
You go cynical, where does that leave the rest of us?

No, because the drug companies are telling the lobbyists to tell their Congresspeople that they're happy with the status quo. And if drug companies are happy, they make campaign contributions. This is why the vote failed. But the failure of the vote is not the only effect.

They want the old and uninsured to vote for them.

Ah but there were 2 actions: bringing it up for a vote, and voting it down. The first was for the people. The second was for the drug companies.

Then how did Canada get it so thoroughly pants down and bent over?

The people have short memories, but not that short. They'll see that for what it is, and vote accordingly, especially if someone makes a campaign commercial out of it.

Contract-breaking penalties, for one. Degrading of trust in the established players, for another. When they come out with the next must-have drug, they want people to buy it, not shun them and fund some Canadian startup.

Who are going to blame the drug companies, not the government. People will blame the drug companies if they act. If they simply fail to act, the people will blame the government, as long as the drug companies aren't stupid enough to announce their intentions or even tell the Canadian government; they need plausible deniability (ie, they need to be able to cite "market forces" when the press asks why their only new drugs are for old people), which they don't have with an ultimatum. The people then figure out "market forces" includes the government. But if the people suspect the drug companies are manipulating them into getting angry with the government, it all falls apart.

I think you're over thinking it with convoluted logic...

I think you have too much faith in government. But since you can't prove that point, and I can't prove this (though this board is full of anecdotal evidence for it), we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Evidence you are an asshole. You are far too willing to believe the drug companies. I'd call it naive, but maybe it's just stupidity.