Prescription Drugs
- Thread starter willie
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
This goes back to the "Impossible Balloon" theory that has bedeviled Liberals and other fools for years. The theory states that it is possible to squeeze one end of a balloon without the other end getting bigger.
Canada, and many other countries, receive discounted drugs from US drugmakers because US drugmakers make enough money on US sales to negotiate prices with poorer countries. Many people like to point to the fact that Canada's nationalized health care system is able to buy in vast quantities as the reason their drugs are cheaper, but that's not the case. First, negotiations and subsequent agreements require two parties, not just one. If the drug companies weren't making X numbers of dollars on drugs in the US they would never offer steep discounts to foreign countries. Second, every drugstore in Canada is offering drugs to the US, it's not just the national health care system.
If Bush were to put the purchase of Canadian drugs on the fast track, what would happen? First, US drug sales would drop drastically, so the drug companies would no longer feel any business or moral need to provide cheaper drugs to poorer countries since the drugs are not going to the poor. So in the end, Americans would end up paying the same high drug prices and the Canadians (and other countries) would pay the higher prices too.
It's all about supply and demand.
Canada, and many other countries, receive discounted drugs from US drugmakers because US drugmakers make enough money on US sales to negotiate prices with poorer countries. Many people like to point to the fact that Canada's nationalized health care system is able to buy in vast quantities as the reason their drugs are cheaper, but that's not the case. First, negotiations and subsequent agreements require two parties, not just one. If the drug companies weren't making X numbers of dollars on drugs in the US they would never offer steep discounts to foreign countries. Second, every drugstore in Canada is offering drugs to the US, it's not just the national health care system.
If Bush were to put the purchase of Canadian drugs on the fast track, what would happen? First, US drug sales would drop drastically, so the drug companies would no longer feel any business or moral need to provide cheaper drugs to poorer countries since the drugs are not going to the poor. So in the end, Americans would end up paying the same high drug prices and the Canadians (and other countries) would pay the higher prices too.
It's all about supply and demand.
willie
Well-Known Member
First, negotiations and subsequent agreements require two parties, not just one. If the drug companies weren't making X numbers of dollars on drugs in the US they would never offer steep discounts to foreign countries.
.
Sounds to me like no one is negotiating on our part and they (medicare for one) should get off their bureaucratic butt and get the originating country some benefits. George's answer "for our protection" was lame.
.
Sounds to me like no one is negotiating on our part and they (medicare for one) should get off their bureaucratic butt and get the originating country some benefits. George's answer "for our protection" was lame.
Wrong answer? How do you figure that? Isn't our government required by legislative acts to assure that all medications available for public consumption pass FDA certification? Because the drug was formulated in the USA and has passed FDA muster does not mean that it couldn't be called the same by a foreign company but not be the same.willie said:
If allowed would you cede any responsibility from harm caused by counterfeit cheap knock-off drugs that could potentially enter the market?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
willie said:
You're right... but guess who's digging this hole we're in? Mostly the Liberals and their cohorts. Ken points out liability issues, and correctly so. Our friends the Trial Lawyers, add a great deal of expense to drug development due to litigation. Some of it warranted, most of it not. Then, add the cost of testing delays because the animal lovers are always upsetting the cart. Then add in the Democrats who force Republicans to do everything dealing with drug distribution in the most expensive way possible to avoid any appearances of favoritism.... just as they are now saying that providing a drug benefit to seniors is showing favoritism to the drug companies. How can you pay for millions of drug doses WITHOUT the money going to the drug companies??? Where else are you going to get the drugs? Canada? Canada's getting their drugs from the same place... the US drug companies!
The reason that drugs are so expensive is that insurance pays for most of them. That's the same reason everything related to healthcare is so expensive. Limbaugh once said that if people has hotel insurance no one would ever stay at a Motel 6 again... they would all want to stay at the Hilton. Same deal here, and if the deep pockets of the government gets deeper into healthcare spending, the prices will go up even more.
willie
Well-Known Member
Yes, wrong answer. Get the FDA off their bureaucratic butt, negotiate with the manufacturers, do something besides status quo. I'm talking about name brand drugs not chinese pills. He was asked a question that is important enough that several states are ignoring the law. His answer shows that this is not very high on his list.Ken King said:
Okay, I'll give you that it does take a while for the FDA to approve products under their control. But what is the alternative? Besides that wasn't the issue, was it? If this is simply as you see it, buying the exact same product from Canada, it would be no problem. I see it as being one of where Canada can sell drugs here that they produce there; in which case they should be inspected to our standard. Opening up drug trade could lead to foriegn companies purchasing products here,taking them back, and recreating them without any form of protection or control.willie said:
My understanding is that it is the name brand manufactured and packaged in the USA. Generics made elswhere should not be allowed.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
willie said:
I thought it was a good answer. I saw a news program the other day that investigated Canadian drug sites, and most of them weren't really in Canada AT ALL. They were from some place in West Africa or elsewhere, and they had a Canadian address or website - and that many of the drugs were either not what they purported to be, or they were watered down versions of the real thing - if you paid for 100 mg, maybe you'd get 10 mg. So it is in our best interest to have them checked out.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
willie said:
Well then isn't that a good argument for what Bush said? FDA approval may be slow, but there's a lot in approving drugs for human consumption, there's a lot of sites to check, and there's way too much that can come over the border until it can be checked. The Kerry argument seems to be, oh the Republicans just want to be cozy to pharmaceuticals. Now THAT's a lame reply!
willie
Well-Known Member
You said the magic word about FDA...SLOW. If you have a fatal disease (Melenoma for example) and there are possible cures in the pipeline and being tested by NIH but only a very select few patients can be included in this test. The test concludes 2 years after your death, now wouldn't that just piss you off just a little? The FDA is too slow to an extreme.SamSpade said:
Tender Vittles
New Member
why you all just pick on democrats? such dittoheads wityhout realizing what good for america. Bush lied, 1000 died.
Tender Vittles
New Member
just no listen to me and gi8ve me bad karma because i stell the truth. Bush lied, 1000 died. Kerry tell the turth.
willie
Well-Known Member
Penn said:However, you did not answer SamSpades' question did you?
The answer that George gave would seem to be a valid one, no? Given the information in the last 6 or 7 replies would tend to bear that out.
The question deserved a more detailed response like how many Canadians have died because of these drugs. BTW the drugs I'm talking about have already been approved they are just cheaper in Canada. This thread is making a big circle.
Tender Vittles said:
I think most of the posters and Bush missed one very key factor. Product liability! When other countries negotiate decreased product costs, the negotiation often includes limits on product liability. It gets back to tort reform and liability limits. And, since most politicians are lawyers, they don't want to limit their potential income if they lose an election and have to go back into law practice.