House OKs bill to ease buying of foreign drugs
Jasbird
Amazing.
It won't make it through the Senate - and the President opposes it.
Does it stand any chance at all of becoming law?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/0/060817-4710-031.html>
House OKs bill to ease buying of foreign drugs
By a vote of 243-186, lawmakers reject the effort of Lilly, others
opposing the measure
By Maureen Groppe mgr...@gns.gannett.com
July 26, 2003
WASHINGTON -- The extensive lobbying and advertising campaign by Eli
Lilly and Co. and other pharmaceutical interests were not enough
Friday to overcome the public's frustration with the high cost of
prescription drugs.
In a rare defeat for the powerful pharmaceutical industry, the House
voted 243-186 early Friday to make it easier for Americans to buy
cheaper prescription drugs from other countries.
The bill would allow consumers, pharmacists and wholesalers to import
Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drugs from 25
industrialized countries where they often sell for much less.
The bill still faces extensive opposition by the White House and the
Senate, where 53 senators have signed a letter opposing it.
The House vote didn't fall along party lines, but it did break along
campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sided with the pharmaceutical
industry had collected nearly three times as much from drug firms as
those who supported the bill, according to the nonpartisan Center for
Responsive Politics.
The industry is among the largest campaign contributors, having given
more than $20 million to federal candidates and parties for the 2002
elections. Lilly ranked fourth in campaign contributions from the
industry, giving $1.6 million, mostly to Republicans.
Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., who helped lead the fight for the bill, said
the vote margin in the House was so unexpectedly large that drug
companies will have to address the problem even if the measure doesn't
become law.
"They know now they have to re-evaluate their position on how they
price American pharmaceuticals," Burton said.
Burton and Rep. Julia Carson, D-Ind., lawmakers who represent the most
Lilly employees in Indiana, were the only members of the state's
delegation to support the bill despite the company's fierce
opposition.
Lilly spokesman Ed Sagebiel called the bill a "three-headed monster,"
which will "jeopardize U.S. prescription drug safety, undermine
research and development and, equally important, will have a
detrimental impact on Central Indiana's economy."
Drug companies argue that the prices other countries set on
prescription drugs are too low for the companies to recoup their
extensive investment.
But bill supporters said the industry lost the fight because it
couldn't explain why the American consumer should pay the full cost of
companies' research and development.
House Republican leaders did not support the bill, but they agreed to
bring it to the floor in exchange for getting the final vote they
needed last month to pass separate legislation adding a prescription
drug benefit to Medicare.
Friday's vote commits the House to trying to include the importation
measure in the final version of the Medicare bill negotiated between
the House and Senate. But the division on this issue makes it even
less likely that the already troubled Medicare bill will pass.
A majority of the senators -- including Indiana's Richard G. Lugar and
Evan Bayh -- signed a letter Thursday urging House and Senate
negotiators to keep the importation measure out of the Medicare bill.
Call Maureen Groppe at 1-202-906-8118.
George Conklin
"Jasbird" <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:6te4iv026v8okj6fl...@4ax.com...
> Big Pharm and the FDA both rejected. Congress sides with the people!
> Amazing.
>
> It won't make it through the Senate - and the President opposes it.
>
> Does it stand any chance at all of becoming law?
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> <http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/0/060817-4710-031.html>
>
> House OKs bill to ease buying of foreign drugs
>
> By a vote of 243-186, lawmakers reject the effort of Lilly, others
> opposing the measure
>
> By Maureen Groppe mgr...@gns.gannett.com
> July 26, 2003
>
> WASHINGTON -- The extensive lobbying and advertising campaign by Eli
> Lilly and Co. and other pharmaceutical interests were not enough
> Friday to overcome the public's frustration with the high cost of
> prescription drugs.
>
>
anything related to medical care in the USA. The only goal of the entire
system is to raise costs as fast as possible.
Steve Harris
"George Conklin" <george...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:tTtUa.120656$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.n
et...
>
> >
> You are right. It will never become law. No one cares
about the cost of
> anything related to medical care in the USA. The only
goal of the entire
> system is to raise costs as fast as possible.
You are so cynical as to be in lala land here. This is not a
vast conspiracy to raise medical prices, but is merely pill
makers trying to protect their interests by protectionist
bills which protect them from foreign import prices. Just
the same as we've seen on everything from sugar to
automobiles in the past-- it has nothing to do with medicine
per se. Such import restrictions are similar to tariffs, but
much less honest. In a tariff, everybody admits what they
are doing and why. But with this kind of import blockade
thing, everybody lies to themselves and others.
In the case of "foreign drugs," there's a lot of
handwringing about the risk of buying pills from off-shore.
But we already long ago decided to take almost all of that
risk by importing active *drugs* as pure substances from
foreign sources, and merely mixing them with excipients and
tableting them here in the US. But any moron can tablet or
encapsulate an already-synthesized drug-- almost all the
difficulty and the danger is MAKING the stuff (remember the
Showa Denko tryptophan fiasco?) Again, we still import
foreign drugs, and have been for a long time. We do it NOW.
So we already take many foreign drugs. What we're mere doing
is paying inflated prices for domestically produced TABLETS
and PILLS. That's all congress (or at least the House) wants
to stop. Good luck to them. I'm not sanguine about it
happening soon (hey, do the French buy US produce?). But it
will happen eventually.
SBH
Nomen Nescio
That whole thing about the foreign drugs being more likely to be
counterfeit is a big farce. It's mostly a story being propagated by the
scared pharmaceutical companies. Maybe if half the commercials on NBC
Nightly News weren't for prescription drugs seniors in the US could afford
them.
Bill
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody AT dizum DOT com> wrote in message
news:AHBGD5683782...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
Agreed. 53 Senators, from both sides, have signed a letter essentially stating
opposition to the House bill. Email them. Make a fuss, or this is going to
die.
Bill
NotHeartless
> Agreed. 53 Senators, from both sides, have signed a letter essentially
> stating opposition to the House bill. Email them. Make a fuss, or this
> is going to die.
>
> Bill
Call me heartless and greedy, but I believe that no law is better than a
bad one.
Let it die...
Bill
"NotHeartless" <n...@thepoorhouse.yet> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.27....@thepoorhouse.yet...
I don't know if you are heartless and greedy, but I think you are missing the
point. Right now there is a law that bans the importation of pharmaceutical
drugs from Canada and Europe. It is not enforced, mostly, for individuals but
is for pharmacies, wholesalers, etc. Thus many Americans pay twice as much for
some drugs as Canadians do. The idea I'm talking about is to eliminate this
law, not to create a new one. Though admittedly this could be done in a larger
context, that is not my point.
Bill
Jasbird
Let it live...
The article you posted is about a different Bill (to fund Medicare).
The Bill to allow drug imports would REDUCE Medicare spending not
increase it.
This is what Reason Magazine think about the Bill I posted about:
George Conklin
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:bfurj0$4fi$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <george...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> news:tTtUa.120656$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.n
> et...
> >
>
> > >
> > You are right. It will never become law. No one cares
> about the cost of
> > anything related to medical care in the USA. The only
> goal of the entire
> > system is to raise costs as fast as possible.
>
>
>
> You are so cynical as to be in lala land here. This is not a
> vast conspiracy to raise medical prices, but is merely pill
> makers trying to protect their interests by protectionist
> bills which protect them from foreign import prices. Just
> the same as we've seen on everything from sugar to
> automobiles in the past-- it has nothing to do with medicine
> per se. Such import restrictions are similar to tariffs, but
> much less honest. In a tariff, everybody admits what they
> are doing and why. But with this kind of import blockade
> thing, everybody lies to themselves and others.
>
So you have just proved my point: no one cares about medical costs.
Bob G.
scared pharmaceutical companies. Maybe if half the commercials on NBC Nightly News weren't for prescription drugs seniors in the US could afford them.
I am a senior citizen...and I am a (semi) retired Pharmacist... And I do NOT SUPPORT a bill that would allow the purchase of Rx drugs from Canada etc...Agreed. 53 Senators, from both sides, have signed a letter essentially stating opposition to the House bill. Email them. Make a fuss, or this is going to die. Bill =================
.
. The playing field is not level ...The Goverment should step in and tell the Eli Lillys' the
Pfizers, the Parke Davis's etc of the world that the prices they charge US Pharmacies
has to be the same as the prices it sells its drugs for in the rest of the world... There is
no reason that a US company should be allowed to manufactuer then export a drug
overseas and sell it for less then they do in the domestic market...
Do I blame senior citizens (or anyone for that matter) for seeking to save a buck...hell no... BUT
I do object to US Pharmacies loosing sales and profits just because a Drug Manufacturer sells
their drugs to a US Pharmacy at much higher prices then they sell to Canadain Pharmacies...
Any action on the part of Congress should be addressing this problem...
Bob Griffiths
Kurt Ullman
<R3...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
> . The playing field is not level ...The Goverment should step in and
>tell the Eli Lillys' the
> Pfizers, the Parke Davis's etc of the world that the prices
>they charge US Pharmacies
> has to be the same as the prices it sells its drugs for in
>the rest of the world... There is
> no reason that a US company should be allowed to manufactuer
>then export a drug
> overseas and sell it for less then they do in the domestic
>market...
>
>
I would be willing to be put a couple bucks on the costs elsewhere suddenly
increasing if this happens. One of the more intersting things in pharm will
happen when (if) the US ever decides to follow along and mandate prices.
Either new drugs will dry up or the pharm companies will start refusing to
sell to countries and then the doo doo will hit the fan at WTO and elsewhere
when the countries try to invalidate patents. May you live in interesting
times.
>Do I blame senior citizens (or anyone for that matter) for seeking to
>save a buck...hell no... BUT
>I do object to US Pharmacies loosing sales and profits just because a
>Drug Manufacturer sells
>their drugs to a US Pharmacy at much higher prices then they sell to
>Canadain Pharmacies...
>
The don't sell to the pharmacies, they sell (essentially) to the government
since the governments set the prices.
--
I'd love to discuss the matter further, but I'm much too busy
trying to cure cancer by playing fantasy baseball.
---fundoc on mw
Richard Schimelfenig
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:bfurj0$4fi$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> message
> news:tTtUa.120656$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.n
> et...
> >
>
> > >
> > You are right. It will never become law. No one cares
> about the cost of
> > anything related to medical care in the USA. The only
> goal of the entire
> > system is to raise costs as fast as possible.
>
>
>
> You are so cynical as to be in lala land here. This is not a
> vast conspiracy to raise medical prices, but is merely pill
> makers trying to protect their interests by protectionist
> bills which protect them from foreign import prices. Just
> the same as we've seen on everything from sugar to
> automobiles in the past-- it has nothing to do with medicine
That is what he said. Protectionist because they seek to keep prices high and
even raise them if they can.
George Conklin
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UZQUa.121764$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <LnQUa.3698$gi.27...@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Bob G. "
> <R3...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > . The playing field is not level ...The Goverment should step in and
> >tell the Eli Lillys' the
> > Pfizers, the Parke Davis's etc of the world that the prices
> >they charge US Pharmacies
> > has to be the same as the prices it sells its drugs for in
> >the rest of the world... There is
> > no reason that a US company should be allowed to manufactuer
> >then export a drug
> > overseas and sell it for less then they do in the domestic
> >market...
> >
> >
> I would be willing to be put a couple bucks on the costs elsewhere
suddenly
> increasing if this happens. One of the more intersting things in pharm
will
> happen when (if) the US ever decides to follow along and mandate prices.
> Either new drugs will dry up or the pharm companies will start refusing to
> sell to countries and then the doo doo will hit the fan at WTO and
elsewhere
> when the countries try to invalidate patents. May you live in interesting
> times.
>
> >
That is the main 'fear' of having Medicare include drugs. It would lead
to bidding for the same prices here that Canada gets.
Kurt Ullman
>
> That is the main 'fear' of having Medicare include drugs. It would lead
>to bidding for the same prices here that Canada gets.
>
>
gotten past the committee in ANY session.
John Dyson
>
> That is the main 'fear' of having Medicare include drugs. It would lead
> to bidding for the same prices here that Canada gets.
>
Eventually, the non-US customers will have to pay for R+D also, or
stop drug innovation. Given the fact that the US is probably the
single biggest country customer (maybe EU), it might be able to
demand the lowest price (probably wont, because of politics), but
will make the non-US customers pay the real costs.
John
George Conklin
"John Dyson" <s...@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:3F2420E9...@iquest.net...
Beverly Erlebacher
You may not be aware of this, but there's quite a lot of drug R&D outside
the US, particularly in Europe.
And "Medicare" doesn't cover drugs in "Canada". Each province of Canada
has its own health insurance system. In Ontario, drugs are only covered
for senior citizens, hospital inpatients and for people who get other
social assistance. Everybody else pays out of pocket or through private
health insurance, usually through an employer.
Kurt Ullman
Most as in 50% not hardly. You also aren't using the "figures" from the
annual report are you? These include marketing, administration and something
else. ALso, most Pharm companies have OTC divisions that obviously spend a
bunch on marketing.
Kurt Ullman
(Beverly Erlebacher) wrote:
>You may not be aware of this, but there's quite a lot of drug R&D outside
>the US, particularly in Europe.
Right. Of course they come to the US first to sell the drugs. So they can
recoup their R$D costs.
>
>And "Medicare" doesn't cover drugs in "Canada". Each province of Canada
>has its own health insurance system. In Ontario, drugs are only covered
>for senior citizens, hospital inpatients and for people who get other
>social assistance. Everybody else pays out of pocket or through private
>health insurance, usually through an employer.
>
But Canada still has a governmental agency that decides how much the Pharm
companies can charge for drugs. There are a number of studies that show while
patented drugs are cheaper, generics are more expensive. Ooops./
George Conklin
"Beverly Erlebacher" <b...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in message
news:2003Jul27.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
out-of-pocket cash prices in Canada are vastly cheaper than in the
USA...that is why so many senior citizens who have to pay for their own
drugs go to Canada or Mexico for those products.
Steve Harris
et...
COMMENT
No, citizens care a great deal about medical costs.
Senators, who are sometimes influenced a lot more by special
interest money than they are their voters, don't.
It's the old problem with democracy: if a bill will cost the
average voter a penny a day, and will make several
industries hundreds of millions of dollars, there will be
heavy lobbying for it on capital hill by those who stand to
gain a LOT, and none by those who stand to lose only a
little. For higher but still small voter taxes the same
asymmetrical conditions apply.
There is no cure for this, please note. Lobbyists from
industry are there for a reason. If the average voter can
save the spotted owl for a few cents a year, he will. If
that wipes out a billion dollar logging industry, the
average voter doesn't give a crap, unless he's a lumberjack.
But let things keep going this way, and pretty soon nobody
has a job, because there aren't ANY big professions that
don't slurp at the public trough or harm the environment
somehow.
SBH
John Dyson
the 'free samples' might be included? Hows the common 'assistance' and
'card' programs of the major manfacturers. You can create all kinds of
nonsense with stats, unless they are resolved MUCH DEEPER than their
line items.
Truly, Canada et al are NOT paying for the R+D, otherwise IF you are correct
that Marketing==Research, then they are still paying less!!!! Think about
this... It is true, WE (USers) are paying all of the (necessary) overhead.
The freeloaders (non-free market market cartels) need to pay also.
John
Steve Harris
...
> Most as in 50% not hardly. You also aren't using the
"figures" from the
> annual report are you? These include marketing,
administration and something
> else. ALso, most Pharm companies have OTC divisions that
obviously spend a
> bunch on marketing.
Which reminds me to give the Doc Harris award for the
Dumbest New OTC Drug of the Year:
8 Hour Extended Release Tylenol.
The reason more people don't fry their livers with regular
Tylenol, is that the organ at least gets a few hour rest
when they're asleep. Now, that's no longer true. Happy day.
Don't hold your breath waiting for 8 hour extended release
N-acetyl cysteine.
SBH
Bill
> The freeloaders (non-free market market cartels) need to pay also.
>
> John
Right. There is simply no rational argument for why Americans should pay twice
as much for some drugs as Canadians, Europeans, Australians, etc.
If one wants to understand the economics, I think it is because a free market
(such as the US) does not work well when faced with a monopoly (such as a drug
under patent.) Fortunately, we have a great way to get around this by allowing
reimportation without sacrificing free market principles.
Bill
Steve Harris
"Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:eghVa.7050$Uf1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "John Dyson" <s...@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:3F258AD9...@iquest.net...
> > The freeloaders (non-free market market cartels) need to
pay also.
> >
> > John
>
> Right. There is simply no rational argument for why
Americans should pay twice
> as much for some drugs as Canadians, Europeans,
Australians, etc.
>
> If one wants to understand the economics, I think it is
because a free market
> (such as the US) does not work well when faced with a
monopoly (such as a drug
> under patent.)
By definition, the market isn't "free" when it is regulated,
and some kinds of transactions are taxed or made outright
illegal. But very few markets are free in this world.
"Markets" actually work fine when faced with monopolies.
The price rises to the point of going without the item, or
using the next best alternative (or there is added the
risk-price in terms of probability of getting caught times
cost of jail time, when illegally copying or smuggling or
whatever). For example, the illegal drug market works well.
It happens to be a black market, but it works.
"Free market" vs. "black market" is not a very useful
economic distinction. Economically, there is just The
Market. The Market factors legal risk in like any other
kind of risk. To the market, the risk of bad weather next
year is evaluated very similarly to the risk of jail time
next year. Or, if you're into life insurance, the risk of
somebody important being dead next year. It all goes into
the economic pot.
SBH
Bill
>
> "Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
> news:eghVa.7050$Uf1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "John Dyson" <s...@iquest.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F258AD9...@iquest.net...
> > > The freeloaders (non-free market market cartels) need to
> pay also.
> > >
> > > John
> >
> > Right. There is simply no rational argument for why
> Americans should pay twice
> > as much for some drugs as Canadians, Europeans,
> Australians, etc.
> >
> > If one wants to understand the economics, I think it is
> because a free market
> > (such as the US) does not work well when faced with a
> monopoly (such as a drug
> > under patent.)
>
> By definition, the market isn't "free" when it is regulated,
> and some kinds of transactions are taxed or made outright
> illegal. But very few markets are free in this world.
>
> "Markets" actually work fine when faced with monopolies.
Not true. The concept of capitalism absolutely requires competition in order
for prices to be driven down. If there is no competition - in the sense of no
close substitute - then the holder of the monoploy can charge what ever he
wants. What would cause him to drive prices down? The current current market
for drugs under patent is a good example of this. In other words, the markets
work in the sense that a price is reached. But they do not work "fine" in the
traditional capitalistic sense that a price that is good for both buyers and
sellers is reached.
In short, true capitalism = free markets = strong competition. Many people
have lost sight of this and belive that capitalism means supporting business,
not supporting markets and competition.
Bill
Bill
Steve Harris
"Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
> > "Markets" actually work fine when faced with
monopolies.
>
> Not true. The concept of capitalism absolutely requires
competition in order
> for prices to be driven down.
There's always competition. Even in a monopoly, there's
competition from other ways of solving the problem.
> If there is no competition - in the sense of no
> close substitute - then the holder of the monoploy can
charge what ever he
> wants.
No. There need not be a "close substitute." Just a
substitute. And there is always the alternative of doing
without. For example, R.K. Rowling may have a monopoly on
her Harry Potter books, but even if it could be perfectly
enforced you don't have to read them, even if you think it's
going to kill you not to.
Even in life and death matters, if your argument were
correct, there would be no second rate hospitals or second
rate surgeons or second rate health plans. People wouldn't
put up with them.They'd pay whatever they had to, to get the
best possible care. Seeing as the first-rate ones can charge
what they like.
However, people in fact don't pay infinite sums to get first
rate care, so you're wrong. Simple as that. People know that
even the best care is not worth an infinite amount. Money
cannot buy you immortality yet. Until it can, all you can do
is make economic tradeoffs. People with a high chance of
dying to not sell their houses and their cars and all they
have to raise their chance of living another year from 10%
to 15%. Rather, they lie to themselves. Or if they don't,
their spouses and children and other beneficiaries do it for
them.
>What would cause him to drive prices down?
What always causes prices to be driven down. At some high
(but not infinite) price, demand meets supply, and there you
are.
>The current current market
> for drugs under patent is a good example of this. In other
words, the markets
> work in the sense that a price is reached. But they do not
work "fine" in the
> traditional capitalistic sense that a price that is good
for both buyers and
> sellers is reached.
>
> In short, true capitalism = free markets = strong
competition.
No. Capitalism requires that people invest "capital" to own
the means of future production, and when they do that, they
do it only because they are betting on future profits.
Letting people own their intellectual property generates
investment capital, and all you have to do to see what
happens to capital investment when you don't allow this, is
go to a country where intellectual property isn't respected,
such as India 1970 to 2000, where drug patent theft caused
drug R&D investment to drop to 5% of what it was pre-1970.
Now that India is coming back to International patent
protection standards on drugs, R&D money is moving back in,
just as it did in Brazil.
You don't really understand capitalism in an information
economy. What you seem to be arguing for is informtion
socialism. I invent something, and you have the right to
steal it from me. So why should I put in the work?
>Many people
> have lost sight of this and belive that capitalism means
supporting business,
> not supporting markets and competition.
You're not supporting "competition" if you don't allow
inventors to keep rights to their intellectual property, or
the fruits of it. You're supporting communism. But we're not
fooled.
Government: Now see here, Comrade Ivan Ivanovich. Communism
means if you have two tractors, you get a tractor, and the
government gets a tractor. Okay?
Ivan: Okay.
Government: Now see here, Comrade Ivan Ivanovich. Communism
means if you have two grain combines, you get a combine, and
the government gets a combine. Okay?
Ivan: Okay.
Government: Now see here, Comrade Ivan Ivanovich. Communism
means if you have two goats, you get a goat, and the
government gets a goat. Okay?
Ivan: Nyet! Never!
Government: But why do you protest on this small point,
Commarade??
Ivan: Because I have two goats.
Bill
> >Many people
> > have lost sight of this and belive that capitalism means
> supporting business,
> > not supporting markets and competition.
>
> You're not supporting "competition" if you don't allow
> inventors to keep rights to their intellectual property, or
> the fruits of it. You're supporting communism. But we're not
> fooled.
I see. I'm in favor of reimporting drugs from Canada and Europe so I support
communism. This is too silly to debate further.
Bill
John Dyson
would DEFINITELY help balance the situation.
John
John Dyson
>
> > If there is no competition - in the sense of no
> > close substitute - then the holder of the monoploy can
> charge what ever he
> > wants.
>
> No. There need not be a "close substitute." Just a
> substitute.
>
Your statement is PATENTLY untrue. I have a med that IF
I get one kind of generic, I get a HORRID headache.
Your answer above shows a disconnect from reality.
John
george...@earthlink.net
> Even in life and death matters, if your argument were
> correct, there would be no second rate hospitals or second
> rate surgeons or second rate health plans. People wouldn't
> put up with them.They'd pay whatever they had to, to get the
> best possible care. Seeing as the first-rate ones can charge
> what they like.
>
They all charge what they like, and simply define whatever it is that
they do to you as "The best medical care in the world." Of course, all the
second and third tier hospitals are NOT not the best in the world, but then
propaganda is more important than the truth.
> However, people in fact don't pay infinite sums to get first
> rate care, so you're wrong. Simple as that. People know that
> even the best care is not worth an infinite amount.
There is no way to define 'best.'
Steve Harris
COMMENT:
Look, bub, there's an easy way to tell which one of us is
disconnected from reality. Is there no limit to the amount
of money you will pay for the brand-name? Can the maker of
it charge you anything he likes?
I want all you people who say that the maker of some
patented drug can charge anything they like for a drug which
has no substitute, to give me three examples in the real
world where this is the case. Good luck.
Even if you manage part A, I want you then, as your next
exercise B to tell me why then the drug in question costs
what it does, instead of twice as much. Or ten times as
much. Or one million times as much.
You can't win at this. It is YOU who are out to lunch with
this argument. Admit it.
SBH
Steve Harris
"Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
Particularly when you set up straw men. The debate includes
me being on record as wanting to import foreign drugs also.
Just so we don't import them from countries like China (and
formerly, India) where sometimes proper patent fees have not
been made to the holder of the intellectual property in
question.
So long as the inventor gets paid, I don't care where the
stuff is made, and neither should the government. That's up
to whoever licenses the patent.
The government does have a role in protecting against
consumer fraud. But it does that with every import, whether
pill or not. The difference is that with pills the FDA feels
its power being eroded, and they want to keep their slice of
the pie when it comes to influence. And in this case, they
are afraid that the USP and NF's sphere of influence will
expand. To be sure, the FDA *enforces* USP and NF standards
already, but they're not happy about other agencies and
subagencies getting more say and more power when it comes to
what FDA is obligated to do. If we import pills, that will
happen.
Pissing contests between government agencies are nothing
new. If you buy a cheese pizza, it's the FDA which
guarantees the wholesomeness of it, the correctness of
figures on the packaging label, and so on. But the
manufacturer puts pepperoni on it, all that responsibility
is turned over to the USDA, and the FDA has no say at all.
This is pretty silly, but it's the way things work for
historically reasons.
SBH
Steve Harris
"Richard Schimelfenig" <DHem...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:mvRUa.900$JS2...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
That is not what he said. Do you understand the difference
between "the entire US system" (the medical system, the
social system, the political system whatever), and merely
the small part of it which includes the US pharmaceutical
companies? Which in this case are the problem?
George thinks everybody in "the US system" is corrupt and
has the sole goal of raising medical prices. George is an
academic who works for somebody else's system, so that
complete indictment would naturally exempt himself. Of
course. But everybody *else*-- everybody in the US-- is just
in it for the money. That's what he's saying, whether you
get it or not.
SBH
John Dyson
>
> "John Dyson" <s...@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:3F25FB5B...@iquest.net...
> > Steve Harris wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > If there is no competition - in the sense of no
> > > > close substitute - then the holder of the monoploy can
> > > charge what ever he
> > > > wants.
> > >
> > > No. There need not be a "close substitute." Just a
> > > substitute.
> > >
> > Your statement is PATENTLY untrue. I have a med that IF
> > I get one kind of generic, I get a HORRID headache.
> >
> > Your answer above shows a disconnect from reality.
> >
> > John
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Look, bub, there's an easy way to tell which one of us is
> disconnected from reality. Is there no limit to the amount
> of money you will pay for the brand-name? Can the maker of
> it charge you anything he likes?
>
massive distorting influences like the nasty limited medical
systems like Canada/UK, etc, then the US really is carrying
the costs.
Your problem is that you can either play games to further distort
the markets, or really try some market solutions. I vote for
trying some more market solutions. You'd prefer more distortion.
If someone owns a product, even condemning it to the government
will cause further distortions. I am not into distortion, or
limited (government chosen) solutions to problems.
Are you sovereign or does your government OWN you? If they
control your access to life-sustaining materials, then they really
do own you.
Answer: lets try solving problems first, before creating new
ones.
John
Jasbird
Reimportation is right and good.
By Edward H. Crane & Roger Pilon | July 29, 2003, 10:45 a.m.
The prescription-drug-reimportation bill the House passed in the wee
hours last Friday morning, by a vote of 243 to 186, was widely opposed
by the thoughtful Right - folks at AEI, CEI, the Heritage Foundation,
the Manhattan Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for
Growth, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, even Cato's own
Doug Bandow in last Thursday's NRO. When we saw, however, that
principled members of the House like Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) and Pat
Toomey (R., Penn.) were on the other side, we thought we'd take a
closer look. It turns out that this really is one of those issues
that's as simple as it seems - free trade is the answer - although
it's easy to be distracted by the complications that surround it. And
that, unfortunately, appears to be what's happened to many of our
friends and colleagues.
cont...
<http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-crane-pilon072903.asp>
Steve Harris
> Your problem is that you can either play games to further
distort
> the markets, or really try some market solutions. I vote
for
> trying some more market solutions.
Stealing intellectual property is not a market solution. At
least not a free market solution.
>You'd prefer more distortion.
Not at all. All "markets" require protection from outright
thievery-- even black markets. Although in the case of black
markets the protection tends toward violence, since fines
and jail time are difficult to administer by agencies not
connected with the state.
If you make theivery legal, the market will simply stop
producing the product. Investment in drug R&D will drop
without patent protection. It now costs between $800 and
$900 million to develop and bring to market a new drug
(depending on whether or not you count post-release
monitoring costs to the maker). Nobody will pay that if
there are no drug patents.
> If someone owns a product, even condemning it to the
government
> will cause further distortions. I am not into distortion,
or
> limited (government chosen) solutions to problems.
What do you mean "condemning it to the government?" If I
own a drug patent, I need the government to enforce my right
of ownership. Just as I do with most of my property.
Otherwise the hoods with the most guns win.
> Are you sovereign or does your government OWN you? If
they
> control your access to life-sustaining materials, then
they really
> do own you.
The guy who invented the life-sustaining materials controls
access to them, because he OWNS them. Do you understand the
concept of ownership? Just because you're hungry does not
mean you should have the right to come in and eat at my
restaurant for free. For emergency situations in which the
starving need food, that's what taxation is for (here I
differ from many anarchistic libertarians). Same with
certain drugs (though the field is narrow).
> Answer: lets try solving problems first, before creating
new
> ones.
We don't have a problem, since we've had a patent system
since this country was created. Other countries that tried
to give up drug patents (ie, India) had problems. Now,
they've gone back to the honest way, and soon won't.
SBH
DWood78828
>From: "Steve Harris"
>If you make theivery legal, the market will simply stop
>producing the product. Investment in drug R&D will drop
>without patent protection. It now costs between $800 and
>$900 million to develop and bring to market a new drug
>(depending on whether or not you count post-release
>monitoring costs to the maker). Nobody will pay that if
>there are no drug patents.
>
Would you please explain why the drug industry remains one of the most highly
profitable industry in this country, when you claim they are spending such vast
amounts of money on R & D.
And please explain why drug companies are not coming up with new drugs, just
'improved' drugs that they have already developed. And why they repeatly
extend their patents.
As for the current bill, it allows pharnacies, not individuals to purchase
drug. And it is assumed they will pass the savings to us. Something I elieve
when I see it. In the mean time, I will continue drive to Canada to obtain my
six month supply.
Denise
george...@earthlink.net
but the profits are private.
Steve Harris
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VE_Va.28333$Mc.22...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
...
> The joke is that government research pays for tons
of drug research
> but the profits are private.
I'm not going to cry over that so long as drug patents last
only 20 years, whereas copyright is author's lifetime plus
50 years (or for corporate copyright, 75 years from date of
open creation).
I see no reason why one kind of intellectual property should
differ from the other in way it is handled by the government
and the public. Basically, right now governments appropriate
intellectual property after 20 years, if it of a certain
sort (recipe for a drug, say). They'd never dare do that
with a book, song, or movie. Or trademark. They get away
with doing that to inventors of drugs and machines, because
there are more "word people" than mechanics and engineers in
Congress. That's all.
SBH
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm not going to cry over that so long as drug patents last only 20
> years, whereas copyright is author's lifetime plus 50 years (or for
> corporate copyright, 75 years from date of open creation).
Nitpick: Congress, looking out for the little guy (Mickey Mouse),
recently increased copyrights by another twenty years. Now it's 70
years after the author's death, or 95 years for corporate works.
It's good to know that if I write a best-selling novel, and have a
child the day I die, that he will be provided for until he's 70 and
able to get a job himself.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Jasbird
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>"John Dyson" <s...@iquest.net> wrote in message
>news:3F25FB5B...@iquest.net...
>> Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > If there is no competition - in the sense of no
>> > > close substitute - then the holder of the monoploy can
>> > charge what ever he
>> > > wants.
>> >
>> > No. There need not be a "close substitute." Just a
>> > substitute.
>> >
>> Your statement is PATENTLY untrue. I have a med that IF
>> I get one kind of generic, I get a HORRID headache.
>>
>> Your answer above shows a disconnect from reality.
>>
>> John
>
>COMMENT:
>
>Look, bub, there's an easy way to tell which one of us is
>disconnected from reality. Is there no limit to the amount
>of money you will pay for the brand-name? Can the maker of
>it charge you anything he likes?
Of course not. Since US manufacturers have started charging ever
higher prices people have started breaking the law by importing
medicines mainly from Mexico and Canada. The FDA and customs can't
cope with this. They just ignore the law and let stuff through because
it would be politically unpopular not to.
Try using your arguments about the benefits of high prices on
pensioners. That they should live in poverty so that future
generations of americans can be prosperous.
It won't work. The vote tells us that.
>I want all you people who say that the maker of some
>patented drug can charge anything they like for a drug which
>has no substitute, to give me three examples in the real
>world where this is the case. Good luck.
Straw man. They don't charge "anything they like" - they do charge
more then the customer should pay. They are overcharging because there
is no free-market. The cartelised US market leads to higher prices
than required - this generates all sorts of inefficiencies when
companies are no longer compteting on price. It is bad for business
and worse for the customer.
>Even if you manage part A, I want you then, as your next
>exercise B to tell me why then the drug in question costs
>what it does, instead of twice as much. Or ten times as
>much. Or one million times as much.
>
>You can't win at this. It is YOU who are out to lunch with
>this argument. Admit it.
>
>SBH
Is this an academic exercise where one persone sets up a straw man
which he then shoots down to prove how bright he is?
Or is it a debate about the merits of a protected cartelised drug
market versus a free-market in drugs?
Jasbird
analogy to make his point indicates that he isn't able to defend the
current drug import ban on its own merits.
Nice of him to bring children into it. We'll always do anthing to
protect the children won't we?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Drug industry destruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 30, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Last week, the House voted 324 to 101 to make it easier for Americans
to import lower-priced prescription drugs sold in Canada and Europe
for their own use. It rejected a more sweeping proposal to allow such
imports by drug wholesalers and pharmacies. The fact of the matter is
that U.S. manufactured drugs sell for 30 percent to 70 percent less in
Canada, though the pills might have a different color and shape. Is
Congress doing us a favor, particularly if they vote to permit
wholesalers and pharmacies to import the cheaper drugs? Let's look at
it, but first let's look at similar pricing practices.
cont...
<http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33834>
John Dyson
>
> <george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VE_Va.28333$Mc.22...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> ...
> > The joke is that government research pays for tons
> of drug research
> > but the profits are private.
>
> I'm not going to cry over that so long as drug patents last
> only 20 years, whereas copyright is author's lifetime plus
> 50 years (or for corporate copyright, 75 years from date of
> open creation).
>
products should have different kinds of 'timeouts' as to
patent/copyright... (BTW, I know that a patent and copyright
are technically different, but they are still a kind of
monopoly of sorts.)
Even though you and I strongly disagree in some cases, I
could accept a compromise of a shortened patent time for
drugs (and/or shortened copyright for software, for example.)
The same time for a vast array of categories (within any
given idea of copyright or patent) seems patently wrong :-).
John
John Dyson
> >
> The joke is that government research pays for tons of drug research
> but the profits are private.
>
The joke is that industry still pays for MORE TONS of drug research. Tax
breaks don't count (because research tax breaks are applicable in cases
beyond drugs.)
John
Kurt Ullman
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>It's good to know that if I write a best-selling novel, and have a
>child the day I die, that he will be provided for until he's 70 and
>able to get a job himself.
But the same ideals don't apply if you build a better mousetrap or mediine?
--
I'd love to discuss the matter further, but I'm much too busy
trying to cure cancer by playing fantasy baseball.
---fundoc on mw
Kurt Ullman
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The joke is that government research pays for tons of drug research
>but the profits are private.
>
>
Last time I checked the total NIH research budget was about 50% of
what the drug companies spent for R&D. The NIH budget also isn't entirely
useful for the pharm companies since they tend to spend on other things like
comparison of meds, complimentary medicines, and other non-pharm aspects of
care.
Kurt Ullman
DOT com wrote:
>>I want all you people who say that the maker of some
>>patented drug can charge anything they like for a drug which
>>has no substitute, to give me three examples in the real
>>world where this is the case. Good luck.
>
>Straw man. They don't charge "anything they like" - they do charge
>more then the customer should pay. They are overcharging because there
>is no free-market. The cartelised US market leads to higher prices
>than required - this generates all sorts of inefficiencies when
>companies are no longer compteting on price. It is bad for business
>and worse for the customer.
Of course to utilize this argument about our cartelized US market you have
to studiously ignore that all of the market you are comparing it to are
cartelized on the buyers side. Canada meds are lower because the government
decides what the price will be. They look at a basket of 6 countries
medications. Of course five of the six also price fix so the outcomes are
somewhat incestuous.
Nomen Nescio
: Last week, the House voted 324 to 101 to make it easier for Americans
: to import lower-priced prescription drugs sold in Canada and Europe
: for their own use. It rejected a more sweeping proposal to allow such
: imports by drug wholesalers and pharmacies. The fact of the matter is
: that U.S. manufactured drugs sell for 30 percent to 70 percent less in
: Canada, though the pills might have a different color and shape. Is
: Congress doing us a favor, particularly if they vote to permit
: wholesalers and pharmacies to import the cheaper drugs? Let's look at
: it, but first let's look at similar pricing practices.
I don't think it would be safe. If the color and shape of the pills were
different, someone might mistake them for something else and kill
themselves. US citizens need to be protected from dangerous policies like
then and be restricted to taking only the American made drugs.
Jasbird
wrote:
>In article <8ndhiv0fabi14p6pf...@4ax.com>, jasbird AT myrealbox
>DOT com wrote:
>
>>>I want all you people who say that the maker of some
>>>patented drug can charge anything they like for a drug which
>>>has no substitute, to give me three examples in the real
>>>world where this is the case. Good luck.
>>
>>Straw man. They don't charge "anything they like" - they do charge
>>more then the customer should pay. They are overcharging because there
>>is no free-market. The cartelised US market leads to higher prices
>>than required - this generates all sorts of inefficiencies when
>>companies are no longer compteting on price. It is bad for business
>>and worse for the customer.
>
> Of course to utilize this argument about our cartelized US market you have
>to studiously ignore that all of the market you are comparing it to are
>cartelized on the buyers side. Canada meds are lower because the government
>decides what the price will be. They look at a basket of 6 countries
>medications. Of course five of the six also price fix so the outcomes are
>somewhat incestuous.
Forget about the argument about cartelised markets then.
Back to the issue of import bans. If people feel a need to keep such
bans there must be a good reason to do so. The onus must always be on
the supporters of bans to justify the ban. Free-traders never need to
justify their arguments. In this case, there are only bad reasons for
a trade ban.
Patented medicines are already protected by international patent law.
If some countries do not abide by these laws such countries may have
specific trade sanctions placed upon them.
OTC medicines should not be protected by any restrictions apart from
tariffs and an free-trader would always argue for a reduction in
tariffs as well and an end to bans.
In the special case of orphaned drugs - There may be an argument for
the protection of such drugs but theses drugs should be protected by
tariffs and the revenue from the tariffs go to subsidize trials for
more orphaned drugs.
In no circumstance is there a case to be made for trade bans. If US
industry needs to be protected it should only ever be done by tariffs.
Herman Rubin
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <VE_Va.28333$Mc.22...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
><george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The joke is that government research pays for tons of drug research
>>but the profits are private.
> Last time I checked the total NIH research budget was about 50% of
>what the drug companies spent for R&D. The NIH budget also isn't entirely
>useful for the pharm companies since they tend to spend on other things like
>comparison of meds, complimentary medicines, and other non-pharm aspects of
>care.
The NIH budget also includes supporting the too little
research on vitamins, antioxidants, and other biochemicals,
diets, causes of diseases like diabetes and Alzheimers,
questions about how to evaluate cholesterol profiles and
other tests which may or may not be done when your health
is evaluated, etc.
The FDA has to approve procedures and claims, on data
supplied by manufacturers and others, but does not support
or carry out much of the research.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
george...@earthlink.net
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%V7Wa.126784$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <VE_Va.28333$Mc.22...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> <george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The joke is that government research pays for tons of drug research
> >but the profits are private.
> >
> >
> Last time I checked the total NIH research budget was about 50% of
> what the drug companies spent for R&D. The NIH budget also isn't entirely
> useful for the pharm companies since they tend to spend on other things
like
> comparison of meds, complimentary medicines, and other non-pharm aspects
of
> care.
>
> --
george...@earthlink.net
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:bgb6sd$3p...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <%V7Wa.126784$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <VE_Va.28333$Mc.22...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> ><george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> The joke is that government research pays for tons of drug
research
> >>but the profits are private.
>
>
> > Last time I checked the total NIH research budget was about 50%
of
> >what the drug companies spent for R&D. The NIH budget also isn't entirely
> >useful for the pharm companies since they tend to spend on other things
like
> >comparison of meds, complimentary medicines, and other non-pharm aspects
of
> >care.
>
> The NIH budget also includes supporting the too little
> research on vitamins, antioxidants, and other biochemicals,
> diets, causes of diseases like diabetes and Alzheimers,
> questions about how to evaluate cholesterol profiles and
> other tests which may or may not be done when your health
> is evaluated, etc.
>
> The FDA has to approve procedures and claims, on data
> supplied by manufacturers and others, but does not support
> or carry out much of the research.
>
Taxol is an example which does not support what you post Herman.
george...@earthlink.net
Nomen Nescio <nobody AT dizum DOT com> wrote in message
news:3K9QZEH737833.6415740741@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
not dangerous to the nation's health.
Jewsus
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody AT dizum DOT com> wrote in message
news:3K9QZEH737833.6415740741@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
oppose.
Buy Canadian.
Kurt Ullman
>
>
>Forget about the argument about cartelised markets then.
Fine, then there is nothing to think about since this seemed to be the
lynchpin of your argument.
>
>Back to the issue of import bans. If people feel a need to keep such
>bans there must be a good reason to do so. The onus must always be on
>the supporters of bans to justify the ban. Free-traders never need to
>justify their arguments. In this case, there are only bad reasons for
>a trade ban.
There are a couple good ones. My personal favorite is that you don't really
know who you are dealing with over the internet or through the mail. I have
considerably fewer problems with people going to Windsor, etc. and buying
things to bring back because you know that the Pharmacy is licensed by the
Prov or Feds and shelling out the same meds you would get if you actually
lived in the country. However, if it is internet or PO, you run very real
risks of getting almost anything as a medication.
>
>Patented medicines are already protected by international patent law.
>If some countries do not abide by these laws such countries may have
>specific trade sanctions placed upon them.
>
Sorry. I don't understand the point.
>In no circumstance is there a case to be made for trade bans. If US
>industry needs to be protected it should only ever be done by tariffs.
From true competition. But since we are talking about monopsonistic
(buyer's monopoly) and price fixing this is hardly the same.
Kurt Ullman
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Most basic scientific research today has tons of government money in it.
>
>
Which is already included in the NIH budget that is much less than the
private budget. Your point?
Jasbird
wrote:
>In article <656iiv8ef9iff343r...@4ax.com>, jasbird AT myrealbox
>DOT com wrote:
>>
>>
>>Forget about the argument about cartelised markets then.
>
> Fine, then there is nothing to think about since this seemed to be the
>lynchpin of your argument.
>>
>>Back to the issue of import bans. If people feel a need to keep such
>>bans there must be a good reason to do so. The onus must always be on
>>the supporters of bans to justify the ban. Free-traders never need to
>>justify their arguments. In this case, there are only bad reasons for
>>a trade ban.
>
> There are a couple good ones. My personal favorite is that you don't really
>know who you are dealing with over the internet or through the mail. I have
>considerably fewer problems with people going to Windsor, etc. and buying
>things to bring back because you know that the Pharmacy is licensed by the
>Prov or Feds and shelling out the same meds you would get if you actually
>lived in the country. However, if it is internet or PO, you run very real
>risks of getting almost anything as a medication.
That situation only arises because of the ban on imported medicines.
If it were not for the ban major players could establish themselves as
dominant players in the market.
If I was afraid of buying duff books I wouldn't shop at www.amazon.com
Recently I bough a 2nd-hand book there advertised as being in
acceptable condition. The book was in appalling condition. The seller
refunded my money. It is not worth the bad press of poisoning someone
or selling them duff drugs. It is in the interests of the seller to
ensure safety and it will be a criminal offence in the home country of
the online pharmacy to sell bad or fake drugs to anyone.
Import bans encourage fly-by-night internet pharmacies which have no
need to establish a reputation because they'll be out of business in a
month's time.
Kurt Ullman implied:
: There are a couple good reasons for a trade ban.
If there are so many good reasons why have you only given me one very
lame reason?
>>Patented medicines are already protected by international patent law.
>>If some countries do not abide by these laws such countries may have
>>specific trade sanctions placed upon them.
>>
> Sorry. I don't understand the point.
OK - if you're not advancing the specious argument that a trade ban is
needed to protect US drug industry profits from companies that have
not made the same R&D investment - then that's OK.
>>In no circumstance is there a case to be made for trade bans. If US
>>industry needs to be protected it should only ever be done by tariffs.
>
> From true competition. But since we are talking about monopsonistic
>(buyer's monopoly) and price fixing this is hardly the same.
What price fixing are you talking about? Are you saying that every
country in the world fixes the price of drugs in the domestic market.
That's a lie.
If the issue was price-fixing then the import ban would only apply to
Canada and other countries were domestic prices were fixed.
The reason for the ban is to feather-bed the US drug industry so that
it can grow fat, lazy and inefficient at the expense of US pensioners.
Jasbird
wrote:
I'm assuming that this is tongue-in-cheek. Other people here seem to
lack your sense of humour. I apologize for them.
The writer's argument above for price discrimination neglects to make
the point that each and every practice of price discrimination has to
be defended on the merits of good done. But the writer has not tried
very hard to do that. He has made a case for orphaned drugs. But to
enable price discrimination all that is required are import tariffs
against the country where prices are subsidized, eg. Canada. There is
no justification for a global ban on imported medicines for personal
use of reimports by the trade.
The only argument for an import ban is the issue of safety - fake and
substandard copies being sold as the real McCoy. But this happens
anyway with the current import ban and an import ban can only
encourage more substandard goods by driving trade underground. The
argument that a trade ban is needed to prevent fake and duff drug
imports is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Jasbird
Canada's drug policies 'parasitic,' U.S. says
Interview with FDA head sparks debate on issue of reliance on American
research
By JANE TABER
Thursday, July 31, 2003 - Page A5
OTTAWA -- The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is
accusing Canada of being "parasitic" in its drug policies that he
believes keep drug prices lower here than in the United States.
Mark McClellan agreed with suggestions by a television interviewer
that Canada has not developed a new drug since 1940, does no research
and development on new drugs, and is simply benefiting from drug
research paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
"That's right. The United States is definitely far and away the world
leader in medical innovation," Dr. McClellan said in reply to
questions and suggestions by PBS television broadcaster John
McLaughlin.
Mr. McLaughlin's program, One on One, was broadcast last weekend. In
it, he made a number of accusations about Canadian government drug
policy to which Dr. McClellan agreed.
"Do you think -- without causing an international crisis here -- that
Canada's behaviour is parasitic?" Mr. McLaughlin asked.
"They're parasitic because they're living off the research we do, and
that research is paid for by the taxpayer who has to pay the prices
for it through the price of prescription drugs . . . "
"That's right," Dr. McClellan said.
They're wrong, Canadian officials say.
"The first order of business is get the facts straight, because there
is so much rhetoric right now," said Industry Canada's Kathryn Howard.
She and Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, which
manufacture brand-name drugs, noted that several new drugs have been
developed in Canada as recently as the late 1980s and 1990s, including
a drug to treat AIDS and one for asthma.
As well, Industry Canada statistics show that the average price of
Canadian drugs is actually 1 per cent higher than prices for the same
drugs in seven different countries, including the U.S.
The other countries surveyed were France, Germany, Sweden, Italy,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
"It tells us we are not out of whack," Ms. Howard said.
The campaign by some to attack Canada seems to have been sparked by
the trading of drugs to the United States over the Internet, and a
debate there over high drug prices.
However, Ms. Howard says Internet sales from Canada account for less
than 1 per cent of the $293-billion U.S. drug market.
The idea that Canada is parasitic is simply wrong, says Jeff Connell
of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association.
"That is absolutely false, absolutely, positively false," he said.
He said the controversy is caused by Americans looking across the
border and seeing their drugs being sold back to them at lower prices.
"What that [the activity of Internet pharmacies] does is threaten the
brands' most lucrative customers, which is of course the United
States," he said.
"That is the biggest market for drugs. It's also got the highest
prices. So that's what this is all about."
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation to
legalize importation of drugs from Canada and Europe, which is causing
much controversy.
The week before his interview with the head of the FDA, Mr. McLaughlin
interviewed the chief executive officer of Pfizer, Henry McKinnell.
Again, the interview concerned the importing of prescription drugs
from Canada.
"Why are drugs cheaper in Canada than they are in the United States?"
Mr. McLaughlin asked.
Dr. McKinnell said: ". . .the Canadian government sets prices for
patented products from the research-based industry, mostly American,
at a very low level.
Dr. McKinnell also suggested that terrorist organizations operating in
Canada may be financing themselves through the illegal export of
drugs.
Kurt Ullman
DOT com wrote:
>
>If I was afraid of buying duff books I wouldn't shop at www.amazon.com
>Recently I bough a 2nd-hand book there advertised as being in
>acceptable condition. The book was in appalling condition. The seller
>refunded my money. It is not worth the bad press of poisoning someone
>or selling them duff drugs. It is in the interests of the seller to
>ensure safety and it will be a criminal offence in the home country of
>the online pharmacy to sell bad or fake drugs to anyone.
You might wanna burn this particular straw man, rather scraggly thing at
that.
I have no idea how you compare bookstores to pharmacies with a straight face.
Actually I would view a pharmacy version of amazon as basically the same as
going to Windsor and would have no problem with it.
>
>Import bans encourage fly-by-night internet pharmacies which have no
>need to establish a reputation because they'll be out of business in a
>month's time.
>
Of course that never happened in the pre-Internet world so all those
pharmacy regs most countries have had in place for years were there just for
show. (I think Steve might agree with that.
>>>Patented medicines are already protected by international patent law.
>>>If some countries do not abide by these laws such countries may have
>>>specific trade sanctions placed upon them.
>>>
>> Sorry. I don't understand the point.
>
>OK - if you're not advancing the specious argument that a trade ban is
>needed to protect US drug industry profits from companies that have
>not made the same R&D investment - then that's OK.
I am saying that the trade ban is needed to protect the patient from
unscrupulous (okay the spelling ain't even close, but you get the idea) people
selling these meds for imports. I think it is grossly unfair to the pharm
companies (and probably to the citizens of these countries) to use other's
monopoly powers to hurt them, but that concern is hardly a reason to stop
importing.
>What price fixing are you talking about? Are you saying that every
>country in the world fixes the price of drugs in the domestic market.
>That's a lie.
Canada, the EU all do. I am pretty sure Britain does, but don't know for
sure.
>
>If the issue was price-fixing then the import ban would only apply to
>Canada and other countries were domestic prices were fixed.
Well there ya go.
Bill
"Jasbird" <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nagiiv802np5681cv...@4ax.com...
One point that is also not often made is that it is individuals who flout the
ban today. The ban is enforced for pharamacies and wholesalers. If the ban
were dropped these would be precisely the people who could make efforts to
impove safety vs. importation now.
Bill
Jasbird
wrote:
>In article <03fiivsguvuj0cm25...@4ax.com>, jasbird AT myrealbox
>DOT com wrote:
>
>>What price fixing are you talking about? Are you saying that every
>>country in the world fixes the price of drugs in the domestic market.
>>That's a lie.
> Canada, the EU all do. I am pretty sure Britain does, but don't know for
> sure.
Are your sure about each and every EU country, you'd best be. I'd be
shocked if there was more than a couple of EU countries fixing prices
and surprised if there were any at all. That's a lot of countries to
be making accusations at. Britain does not.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2602327.stm>
The problem in the UK is pharm companies operating an unofficial
cartel to drive prices higher.
Herman Rubin
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Taxol is one of a not sufficiently large set of drugs, which
government research came up with enough evidence to indicate
it was a promising treatment. Possibly the government work
cut 20% off the pharmaceutical company's expenditure to get
the drug to market.
NotHeartless
> Let it live...
>
> The article you posted is about a different Bill (to fund Medicare).
> The Bill to allow drug imports would REDUCE Medicare spending not
> increase it.
Somehow, even with the subject line, i got my wires crossed.
I shall now crawl back under my rock.
Sorry.
John Dyson
>
> Taxol is one of a not sufficiently large set of drugs, which
> government research came up with enough evidence to indicate
> it was a promising treatment. Possibly the government work
> cut 20% off the pharmaceutical company's expenditure to get
> the drug to market.
>
In my own field, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an R+D
type project and making a real, viable and proven product. The
R+D (up to productizing) isn't necessarily fully covered by
a grant, and only a small part of the work might be. Productizing
a piece of technology can be 'challenging' and 'expensive.'
John
Nomen Nescio
:>
:>I don't think it would be safe. If the color and shape of the pills were
:>different, someone might mistake them for something else and kill
:>themselves. US citizens need to be protected from dangerous policies like
:>then and be restricted to taking only the American made drugs.
: I'm assuming that this is tongue-in-cheek. Other people here seem to
: lack your sense of humour. I apologize for them.
You are right. I debated putting a <sarcasm mode on> disclaimer on there
but thought it would look stupid.
george...@earthlink.net
Herman, government paid for the trials and the development. For that,
nothing was paid back into the kitty for further research.
george...@earthlink.net
John Dyson <s...@jdyson.com> wrote in message
news:3F29DE87...@jdyson.com...
basic research is cheap.
george...@earthlink.net
Nomen Nescio <nobody AT dizum DOT com> wrote in message
news:3K9QZEH737833.6415740741@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
drugs. Every time the generic manufacturer is switched at the local USA
pharmacy, the color and shape of the resulting pills is different. Burn
your straw man.
george...@earthlink.net
Bill <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:BkdWa.2814$yK4....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
may or may not be true.
Kurt Ullman
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Herman, government paid for the trials and the development. For that,
>nothing was paid back into the kitty for further research.
>
>
Gee and all this time I thought Pharm companies paid taxes... Silly me.
george...@earthlink.net
> In article <ILsWa.128259$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> <george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Herman, government paid for the trials and the development. For that,
> >nothing was paid back into the kitty for further research.
> >
> >
> Gee and all this time I thought Pharm companies paid taxes... Silly me.
>
> --
Paying taxes on profits is vastly different from paying for our own
research.
Kurt Ullman
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Paying taxes on profits is vastly different from paying for our own
>research.
>
>
Of course they do both. The researchyou are moaning about (despite the fact
the pharms spend MUCH more) is all taxpayer financed. So, if they pay their
taxes, then they should get some of the benefit, no big deal.
John Dyson
and productizing are neither cheap. When a minor fact is extracted from
basic research, that doesn't produce product. Even when an interesting
substance works well, and appears to be practical to synthesize, this
doesn't mean that product would be cheap to produce (or even productize.)
There really does appear to be the Star Trek mentality, where the complexities
of production and robust (safe) implementation are glossed over.
John
John Dyson
expensive (when it is paid for.) Many lines of research are dry wells.
Some of the 'wells' show that a product can be produced, but there is
the need for MUCH MORE refinement and MUCH MORE testing before the product
is viable. Take a look at penicillin -- it obviously destroys bacteria, but
producing a product for volume use (and testing) is sometimes initially
very difficult.
John
John
Steve Harris
safety - fake and
> substandard copies being sold as the real McCoy. But this
happens
> anyway with the current import ban and an import ban can
only
> encourage more substandard goods by driving trade
underground. The
> argument that a trade ban is needed to prevent fake and
duff drug
> imports is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
COMMENT
Indeed. Like so many of the problems mentioned as
justification in the "war on drugs" (a.k.a. war on the
lowerclass). The idea that narcotics should be illegal
because so many addicts (a few hundred a year) kill
themselves which accidental overdoses of drugs of unknown
purity. The idea that drugs should be illegal because they
can ruin your life (not least because a prison record is
very effective at this). Or that drugs should be illegal
because drug lords shoot each other over distribution
territory rights (much as Chicago gangsters did during
Prohibition, over alcohol distributorship--- duh).
And last, but not least, I have seen a fed-paid commercial
on TV in which two sensitive and earnest business-suited
yuppies were arguing about drugs, and the one dunned the
other with the idea that drugs should be illegal because
drug profits go to support international terrorism. Illegal
drug profits, that is.
My--- the very thought that when drugs are illegal, the
profits from the illegal drug industry go to support
criminals! Shocking.
It's fantastic how stupid the feds must think the average TV
watching public is. And even more fantastic how close in
most cases they probably are to being right.
SBH
Steve Harris
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZOsWa.128265$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.n
et...
With some interesting close exceptions. Generic fluoxetine
comes in capsules that are blue and white. If you look at
them through the standard clear-yellow pill dispensing
bottle, they are green and yellow, and look *just* like
Prozac.
Wanna bet me that when generic omeprozole hits, they won't
put it in a purple capsule? All that will be missing is the
two silly bands.
SBH
Bill
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZPsWa.128267$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
You missed my point. Perhaps I did not make it clearly. People drive today to
Canada or get drugs through the mail to take advantage of cheaper prices. It
is argued that for safety reasons we should not allow reimportation. However,
a wholesaler doing reimportation would be in a much better position to assure
safety than the individual would (e.g. he could track down the point of origin
of the drugs, do quality checks on individual samples, etc.) Hence, the
individual who travels to Canada today may in fact find himself safer if drug
reimportation is allowed - since he might then buy from the wholesaler.
Bill
george...@earthlink.net
> In article <f7uWa.29981$Mc.23...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> <george...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Paying taxes on profits is vastly different from paying for our own
> >research.
> >
> >
> Of course they do both. The researchyou are moaning about (despite the
fact
> the pharms spend MUCH more) is all taxpayer financed. So, if they pay
their
> taxes, then they should get some of the benefit, no big deal.
>
profit from that research needs to back to support more research DIRECTLY.
george...@earthlink.net
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:bgec14$nuf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
from the branded versions when she gets generics provided by the HMO. Even
the names on the labels are different, so you have to be very careful about
what is what.
george...@earthlink.net
Bill <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
Ok I understand. However, don't make the assumption that people in
Canada are any more likely to get bad drugs than we in the USA are. We
Americans are so arrogant we actually think that we have the best medical
care in the world. The rest of the world laughs at us.
Bill
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:06AWa.128764$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I agree. The arguements against reimportation have several degrees of depth to
their silliness.
Bill
>
>
Guido Marx
Of course - such arguments are totally specious. Unless someone can
provide any evidence that drugs in Canada are not as safe as those
drugs in the US. If the concern was about safe drugs in the US - then
why haven't I heard about more stringent regulation of compounders
here in the US? In the Bay Area, a number of people were killed and
several more made critically ill by a batch of cortisone which was
contaminated with bacteria when it was improperly mixed at a local
pharmacy.
Guido
John Dyson
>
> Ok I understand. However, don't make the assumption that people in
> Canada are any more likely to get bad drugs than we in the USA are.
>
The biggest differences (on available drugs) appears to be in labeling.
>
>We
> Americans are so arrogant we actually think that we have the best medical
> care in the world. The rest of the world laughs at us.
>
It is VERY EASY to deny the fact about the fantastic health care available
in the US, and those who don't have that benefit do sometimes laugh about
it as a self-defense of their ego. A minor difference is my Moms
husband's family members: they take advantage of the better service
and availability in the US, even being from Canada. This is even true
for the non-affluent members.
If the situation isn't an especially serious case the differences are
relatively unimportant. It would be interesting to find out which country
was first to find out about the destruction caused by Baycol, and to actually
move to solve the problem as quickly as possible? (I really don't know,
but it would be interesting to find out.) About the Baycol thing, there
are several people who I know were damaged (at least slightly) by it. That
Bayer drug was supposedly 'excellent.'
John
george...@earthlink.net
Bill <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
I guess we just have to realize that when it benefits the well-to-do
corporation to import something, then it is defined as the national good.
Otherwise, the brand it a risk.
george...@earthlink.net
> george...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok I understand. However, don't make the assumption that people in
> > Canada are any more likely to get bad drugs than we in the USA are.
> >
> The biggest differences (on available drugs) appears to be in labeling.
>
Labeling may be different, but the risk of bad drugs appears to be no
higher in Canada than the USA.
george...@earthlink.net
Baycol is just a good example of weak followups once a drug is approved.
george...@earthlink.net
Guido Marx <guidosj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d9f92bf.03080...@posting.google.com...
Or what about the pharmacy which was diluting chemotherapy drugs in the
USA?
Bill
<george...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O6OWa.30952$Mc.24...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> I guess we just have to realize that when it benefits the well-to-do
> corporation to import something, then it is defined as the national good.
> Otherwise, the brand it a risk.
>
>
Actually it does to some degree. It helps The Govt. (who have to pay for drugs
through Medicaid, for employees, etc.), large companies who provide drug
benefits for employees and retirees (IBM, GM, etc.) and individuals who pay
for drugs on their own. It hurts drug manufactures to roughly the same
degree - though there may be an effect of increasing demand that offsets this.
I really don't understand where all the opposition to this is coming from.
Bill
Jewsus
"Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
>
> I really don't understand where all the opposition to this is coming
from.
>
> Bill
The war on drugs is for drug companies to control the happiness of US
citizens hiding behind religious morality.
When canadian drugs start crossing the borders in mass quantities to
ease the stress of the peasants, the US drug companies will no longer
have the lobbying power they have had the last 60 years.
Or since 1947 when the US took its turn for conservative extremists
during the McCarthy $20,000 kickbacks from pepsi cola.
Jasbird
had to argue on safety grounds is because this argument (below) does
not work - that an import ban is needed to keep prices high to keep
profits high to reinvest in new drugs. The counter argument is that a
tariff will achieve the same effect.
I think that the reason for the double argument (safety & higher
profits to fund research) is to make the situation look more complex
than it is - so that it's harder to refute the ban's supporters.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Posted on Sun, Aug. 03, 2003
NEST EGG: Drug reimportation bill isn't a healthy solution
By JERRY HEASTER | Columnist
Seniors and those nearing their senior years may live to regret the
ostensible savings they'll no doubt welcome if Congress approves drug
reimportation from foreign countries.
What they likely see as help for their nest eggs may deny them the
healthiest life possible in their old age.
After recent House approval of a drug reimportation bill, Rep. Jo Ann
Emerson of Missouri said the vote's message was that billions in
savings for consumers was more important than billions in drug company
profits.
This view, however, ignores how drugmakers spend much of their money
developing better medicines. And any policy hindering the development
of better drugs will affect older Americans relatively more than most
other groups. Will the short-term financial benefit of reimportation
be worth the long-term health benefit if development of new drugs is
slowed by inadequate funding?
The safety issue has been a trump card of the industry and its allies
in the fight against reimportation. While this is a serious
consideration, the issue of scientific progress is just as critical.
cont ...
<http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/6406017.htm>
Jasbird
That does not explain a world-wide reimport ban. If the issue was
about capped prices the ban should only apply to countries where
prices are capped. I repeat - the EU does not cap prices - although I
can't vouch for every single member country.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s916226.htm>
Sunday, August 3, 2003. 7:00pm (AEST)
Govt rejects claim free trade deal will push up drug prices
The Federal Health Minister, Kay Patterson, says the Government has
demonstrated its commitment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
(PBS).
Ms Patterson has dismissed concerns from the Doctors Reform Society
that the PBS will be on the table in the free trade negotiations
between Australia and the United States.
The society says the cost of many American drugs could triple in
Australia if the scheme is negotiated upon.
Ms Patterson says that is not going to happen.
"We have one of the best systems in the world, we have the cheapest
medications in the world," she said.
"We have a system which I'm determined to keep sustainable and which
is not up for grabs in the free trade agreement."
Bill
In the long run if reimportation is allowed, I expect drug prices will rise
slightly in other countries as everyone begins to share drug development costs
that US customers now pay pretty much alone. (And why in any sense would it be
fair for the US to pay most of the drug development cost?)
Bill
William A. Noyes
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:bgec14$nuf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
Or maybe it will look like Domer......Mexican generic omeprazole.
Domer comes in a basic red capsule.
Costs about one US dollar per 20 milligram dose.
I wonder if "they" will get the price down to
the Mexican price level?:-) I'll bet not.
Steve Harris
"William A. Noyes" <no.ad...@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:3f2de...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> > Wanna bet me that when generic omeprozole hits, they
won't
> > put it in a purple capsule? All that will be missing is
the
> > two silly bands.
> >
> > SBH
>
> Or maybe it will look like Domer......Mexican generic
omeprazole.
> Domer comes in a basic red capsule.
> Costs about one US dollar per 20 milligram dose.
> I wonder if "they" will get the price down to
> the Mexican price level?:-) I'll bet not.
Looks like not. I'm seeing the generic commercials on TV, so
generic omeprazole must actually be here. Made by Swartz
Pharma. Haven't actually seen one yet. Ads claim you can
save $30 a month with it, which means that the generic is
lowballing Nexium by about $1 a cap. This would be
something like $1.80 each.
Not enough to seriously challenge H2 blocker prices, but
just enough to switch from Protonix or Prevacid (somewhere a
bit above $2 a cap) if you must have a drug in this class.
They'll collect it while they can, until a second generic
comes on the market. Look to AstraZenica to now drop their
name brand Prilosec prices to just over the generic
omeprazole price, but keep Nexium prices higher. That may
sound crazy, but it's done all the time for name brand drugs
that are off patent (for example, UpJohn Pharma still sells
Xanax, but also makes alprazolam generic for Greenstone,
their generic in-house).
Prilosec made 2.7 billion dollars last year. This is the
drug that made AstraZenica and nearly bankrupted a lot of
health plans. Many people will miss it, but not many payors
will.
If the Schwarz generic actually isn't quite the same,
tolerability-wise (this has happened with other drugs in the
past), the poor folks who can tell the difference are going
to have to switch to another drug in the class, or pay out
of pocket (ouch) or else wait until next year for
AstraZenica's generic answering response. For the rest of
this year, at least, the purple pills of AstraZenica are
going to be taking a lot of heat.
SBH
DrumLib
> OK, Canada is not the ONLY country in the world with capped prices.
> That does not explain a world-wide reimport ban. If the issue was
> about capped prices the ban should only apply to countries where
> prices are capped. I repeat - the EU does not cap prices - although I
> can't vouch for every single member country.
>
There is an interesting article on this prescription drug importation
issue at mises.org. The article discusses the relationship between the
drug issue, mercantilism, protectionist legislation, etc. Very
interesting. Here is the link and a quote:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1283
"Doug Bandow of Cato, for example, argues that because foreign
countries do not have free markets for drugs, they shouldn't be
permitted to export to the US which does. Of course that is precisely
the same rationale used by the catfish and textile industry to ban
competitive products. If anything, the claim is even more absurd since
we are not talking about competitors but the very same firms that
already sell in the US"
Live Long and Prosper!
DrumLib
DrumLib's Health Research Review
Research-based health and weight loss information
http://www.drumlib.com
Vitamin Price Comparison
http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm