Canada v. US

hi, flushd and pachelbel :
i guess i'm one old canadian fogey (canada being my adopted country).
i agree with you , i don't mind paying some extra taxes knowing i can see my physician when i need him .
seeing some of my old friends in retirement homes, i'm also quite happy seeing my tax dollars going for care of the elderly .
i know it's not perfect , but what is ?
i hope our system stays more or less the way it is . no doubt some things will change over time - everything does - again, i can live with that .
i have no urge to become a millionaire (i can hardly spell the word !) , perhaps in some eyes that makes me a shiftless bum - i can live with that too !
have a good one ! eh ! hbg(loving his adopted country)

george wrote :
"The Canadian government has also made itself the sole authorized buyer from manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs: it uses its sovereign power to bully drug manufacturers into discounts under the threat of patent infringement by authorizing the manufacture of generic knock offs."

hmmm, "uses its sovereign power to bully drug manufacturers ' .
in some recent programs about walmart, i have heard suppliers use these same words in describing walmart's purchasing practices .
perhaps walmart knows what's right for the consumer after all !

plenty of american seniors arrive by the busload to purchase vital drugs in canada . i've heard them say over-and-over again , 'if i couldn't purchase them in canada, i'd have been dead long ago - i simply cannot afford the american prices ' .
those american seniors must be malcontents - or worse, liberals ??


'nuff said (for now). hbg

look what the cat dragged in !
(from USA TODAY , sometime in 2003)

seems there are some people, states , whatever ... that are not happy with the u.s. drug pricing system .
-----------------------------------------------------------
More cities, states opt for Canadian drugs
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
For a year, the city of Montgomery, Ala., has been quietly saving money on its employees' health insurance costs ?- with a little help from Canada.
Although New Hampshire, Boston and Springfield, Mass., have grabbed headlines over programs aimed at helping residents purchase drugs from Canada, Montgomery beat them all.

"Quite honestly, we've not sought attention on this," says Jeff Downes, executive assistant to the mayor.

The program ?- a voluntary part of the city's health benefit program for city employees and retirees who wish to get their drugs from a Canadian pharmacy ?- began last December and will save the city $400,000 to $500,000 in its first year, Downes says.

Who's seeking Canadian drugs

Cities already helping with drug purchases from Canada:
Montgomery, Ala.
Springfield, Mass.

Some of the municipalities and states considering such programs:
New Hampshire
Minnesota
Illinois
Burlington, Vt.
Boston
Westchester County, N.Y.

Source: USA TODAY research





A growing number of cities, counties and states say they want to allow employees, retirees and ordinary citizens to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, where prices are lower because the government controls what drugmakers can charge.

•Monday, Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois asked for federal permission to set up a pilot program that would import medications from Canada, but federal officials said they could not certify that such a program would be safe.

•Last week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino met with the Food and Drug Administration but was not dissuaded from his plan to launch a program to help city employees and retirees to buy drugs from Canada.

Challenging the FDA

If several municipalities and states launch cross-border drug-purchase programs, the efforts will present one of the most serious challenges to FDA authority in the agency's history. The FDA has warned cities and states that aiding U.S. residents in purchasing drugs from abroad could be illegal and unsafe, but it isn't clear the agency will be able to stop them.

"We'll evaluate any program that starts," warns the FDA's William Hubbard, associate commissioner for policy. Hubbard says he hopes city and state leaders talk with the FDA before launching any programs.

"We don't intend to wait for their blessing," says Burlington, Vt., Mayor Peter Clavelle, who says he wants his city to have a program underway by March 1.

Many legal observers say the FDA may have little recourse but to fight each city and state.

"The administration has staked out a position they can't afford not to defend," says attorney Jim Czaban, who specializes in drug law for Washington, D.C., firm Heller Ehrman.

But the growing momentum may make that effort futile.

"There are probably 60 cities and counties we are talking with," says Tony Howard, chief executive of CanaRx, a Canadian pharmacy that coordinates the city of Springfield's program that began earlier this year to help employees purchase prescriptions in Canada.

He says if enough cities and states enact cross-border drug programs, it will prompt Congress to change drug law and bring costs for medicine in the USA down to the level they are in the rest of the world.

"If the U.S. were to drop costs to the average of the world, and then the pharmaceutical industry said it needed more money for research and development, then add a dollar to every prescription filled throughout the world," says Howard. "But be fair. Why should the U.S. pay twice as much as what everyone else does?"

Debate in Congress continues. Some lawmakers want to make it easier for residents to bring drugs in from Canada. But others fear that if enough individuals, cities and states buy from Canada, it could further raise prices in the USA as drug companies seek to make up for lower revenue. They want to see other countries raise their prices, rather than impose price controls in the USA.

Canadians are also split on the moves, with some supporting the business cross-border sales brings to some local pharmacies, which collect a commission on each sale to the USA, while others fear it will lead to higher drug costs or shortages in Canada.

The FDA has made a move to halt one city's program. After Springfield, Mass., began offering its cross-border drug program earlier this year, the FDA sent warning letters to the city's drug coordinator, CanaRx, based in Windsor, Ontario. But the FDA's effort was dealt a setback when CanaRx closed all its U.S. storefronts, effectively removing itself from FDA jurisdiction.

FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan last month flew to Canada to meet with Health Canada officials, who the FDA says are now reviewing CanaRx to ensure that it is not violating any Canadian laws. That investigation could take months, says Hubbard.

In the meantime, the FDA is working with some states to help them take action against commercial storefronts that help individuals buy drugs from Canada. The FDA in November won a key court battle, shutting down Rx Depot, which operated a chain of storefronts. The FDA argued that Rx Depot, and other firms like it, endanger patients by importing unapproved drugs from Canada.

"More than half the states have taken action against these storefront pharmacies or Internet operations within their state boundaries," says Tom McGinnis of the FDA.

In Alabama, for example, the state's board of pharmacy has succeeded in shutting down every storefront business it has learned of that helps residents purchase drugs from Canada, mainly for operating without a license.

Jerry Moore, executive director of the Alabama pharmacy board, says safety is the issue.

"If there is one adverse event (from a drug purchased through Canada), all the money you save would not be worth having a person end up in the hospital because a drug was subpotent, tainted or counterfeit," says Moore.

He says his agency has not taken action against Montgomery because the pharmacy the city deals with is outside the state's jurisdiction, but the agency has referred the matter to the FDA.

Safety of Canadian drugs

Supporters of Canadian drug purchases say the safety issue is misleading. Drugs from Canada, they say, are just as safe as drugs bought in the USA.

Downes in Montgomery says the city's program "ensures that all safety precautions are in place."

City employees and retirees who wish to participate submit information on their medical history and the drugs they take. Then, if the prescriptions they need are included on a list of about 750 drugs it covers through Canada, the employees can purchase the drugs by sending their doctors' prescriptions to the city's pharmacy benefit manager. The management firm, which is in Texas, handles all the city's drug claims.

Drugs from Canada must be at least 20% cheaper than what can be found locally to be included on the city's list. Downes says most of the drugs cost 40% to 60% less than in the United States. The pharmacy manager sends the prescription to a Canadian pharmacy, which fills it and mails it directly to the employee.

The program has been so successful in saving money, Downes says, that a 15% co-payment that patients were charged was dropped in November. So employees who choose to get their drugs through Canada get them free.

"Employees save money and the city saves money," says Downes.

He admits that purchasing drugs from Canada will help only so much. "Believe me, I don't view this as a solution. This is a Band-Aid. But we need some Band-Aids."

usa canada
amigo :
looking for mexican food in toronto ? no problema - will 306 do for a start ?
enjoy ! and have a good one , eh ! hbg
(my advice : don't go to vancouver if you are looking for mexican food in canada)


...MEXICAN RESTAURANTS...

hamburger,

If I were king (and probably a good thing I am not) I would impose a substantial tax on the products of any drug manufacturer that offers a discount to the Canadian Government that it does not also offer to U.S. consumers. I would also take appropriate retaliatory actions against Canadian exports if it was found that the Canadian government had wrongfully taken the intellectual property or patent rights of Drug manufacturers through the threat or act of prematurely authorizing the production of generics.

The instant result would be that, owing to the much greater size of the U.S. market, the drug manufacturers would quickly resist the deep discounts demanded of them by the Canadian government; the free market would be restored; and drug prices in the U.S. would drop proportionally (and thise in Canada would rise). Canadians and Americans would then face an equitable situation with respect to prescription drug prices and the problems you cite would disappear.

george :
since the u.s. market is so much bigger, why the high prices in the u.s. ?
as i said : perhaps walmart knows what's good for the consumer ?
or do you think walmart's buying practices are bad for the consumer ?
perhaps put walmart in charge of buying drugs for the american seniors ?
hbg

"Judith Miller is surrendering her liberty "in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government."

Her action falls within "the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding, which holds that the common good is best served in some instances by private citizens who are willing to defy a legal, but unjust or unwise, order."

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/07/07.php

Walmart is not a sovereign nation, and it does not (yet) have monopoly power. The Goverrnment of Canada uses both in its extortion of Drug companies.

The Canadian policy has indeed benefitted Canadian consumers. However it has injured American ones in the process. If the United States were to introduce these policies it would quickly kill off investment in new drugs and eventually stop the progress in new treatments. This action would also stiffen the spines of the Drug companies, and raise prices for Canadians to some degree. This is an unfair trade practice by Canada that utterly dwarfs (in its economic impact) the softwood and cattle issues that so inflame hypocritical Canadians.

Incorrect. You imply that there is no plausible reason to invest in the creation of new drugs besides monetary profit. This is untrue.

Cycloptichorn

Chumly, read this please.

Surpluses both achieved and anticipated have allowed the government to direct more money toward paying off the accumulated debt. As a result, the cost of paying interest on the debt has dropped from a high of 33 cents of every dollar of revenue collected by the federal government in 1995/96 to 19 cents in 2001/02. Another promising sign is the decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio, which gives a picture of the size of a nation's debt in relation to the size of its economy. Though still high by historical and international standards, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen from 69% in 1995/1996 to 46% in 2001/02.

http://142.206.72.67/03/03a/03a_005d_e.htm#t01

and this: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Interest but oddly implausible assertion.

Would you care to name a few of the breakthrough drugs which were researched, developed, certified and sold by non-profit organizations?

The investment money for new drugs comes either directly or indirectly from the government. Either the government directly funds new drug programs through the NIH or the CDC, or it funds university research or private institution research, which produces the chemical discoveries upon which new drugs are based. It is the height of naive capitalist-toad eating to believe that the drug companies actually spend their own money on drug research--why should they? The government funds that, and they plow hundreds of millions per new drug into advertising, increasingly, television advertising.

There are none so naive as those who think they have a sophisticated knowledge of how the world works simply because they back the party line of the wealthy and powerful. Rubbing elbows with the "great" seems to lead so many to believe that they have their finger on the pulse.

None in the last fifty years. I would say that individual research has lead to some advances in the medical field (such as the Polio vaccine and the recent cure for Ulcers) but the majority of 'breakthrough' or startlingly new drugs have been produced by Big Pharma.

This doesn't mean, however, that there is no incentive to invest in pharma research besides money. For example, I invest in cancer research every year, without a hope of ever recieving a penny in return - but then again, the money I give will help end cancer for people like my Father who had it twice, and it will help protect my children from cancer in the future.

There is a great amount of non-monetary return to be had in the investment of monies into drug research; if we weren't so focused on 'profit' we would either have curtailed many of the diseases and problems that plague mankind, or be farther along the path to doing so.

On Edit: Actually, I decided to do some research on non-profit Pharmas out there (I figured there must be some) and found the following that you might want to look at:

http://www.oneworldhealth.org/

They are attempting to do exactly what I was talking about: further the health of humanity as a whole without relying on the corporate profit model to do so. They are working on a cure for Malaria, as well as drugs addressing Diharrea and Chagas, all three of which would be 'breakthrough' drugs.

Also, I do recall reading that Big Pharma spends tons of money each year wining and dining doctors in order to get them to prescribe more of their drugs. This cost gets passed right along to the consumer.

Not to mention the fact that Big Pharma has spent more money on stock dividends in the last few years than they have on R&D; it is painfully obvious that these companies, which purport to support Human Health, are interested in making a profit and little else.

There are other ways of doing things.

Cycloptichorn

Bogus political rhetoric by combining "achieved and anticipated", how very peculiar! Do you expect me to assess this as quantifiable and qualifyable, if so how? Further do you expect me to believe the Government (or anyone for that matter) can predict surpluses, if so how?
Again entirely irrelative to the bigger picture, again look at the last 50 years. Again you are looking at short term volatility only.My point "still high by historical and international standards", again look at the last 50 years, not the last few years, you will not see the debt decrease in terms of quantifiable and qualifyable real buying power decreases. Do you know what real buying power from a net position over time means?

I get the feeling you did not read my post very closely and/or have not done your own assessments vis-a-vis my suggestions. Am I correct on this that you are simply regurgitating pre-digested snippets as passed to you from sources you approve of?

You have in fact not responded directly to any of my assessments "on point" but instead have chosen a time span of little relevance to my assessments at hand, from a source not of your own confirmation. Please address my assessments in your own words and on point.

Since Burger copy & pasted an overly large piece of text I'll present them again here for your convenience.

Well I believe your first paragraph provides a good example of the truth of the second.


Federal NIH and University research is generally focused on basic issue. Moreover a great deal of it goes simply to sustain the rather large bureaucracies involved. You have only to check an online quarterly SEC report for MERC or any of the other major drug companies to verify the enormous sums of thir own funds they expend in the development, testing, and certification of specific new drugs and treatments. Moreover the private sectir funds ususlly deliver better results, quicker and at much lower costs than the activities of government. The fiasco of the richly funded Federal Genome project is a wonderful illustration of this point. (Their commercial (for profit) rival spent far less and beat the Feds to the key about a year sooner.

One has only to speak to retired members of those same industries to know that the lion's share of their "R&D" money goes to product promotion, and that they lean very heavily on the chemical research done outside their own corporate laboratories.

I am never surprised, however, to see george lapping up whatever plate of **** the capitalists put down for their lap dogs.

Another favorite trick of the drug companies is to "re-market" the same drugs. They change the chemical signature slightly, enough to patent the formulation, and then basically sell the same drug for which they previously had exclusive rights, but which is now being produced as a generic. Prilosec and Claritin are prime examples of the drug companies altering drugs which had gone generic, and then heavily advertising to a gullible public to get them to ask their physicians about the "new" drugs.

They also 'reformulate' to extend the period of thir patent protection.

I believe the issue then rests on what is the meaning of "lean heavily" in your earlier post. Of course the pharma industry uses basic researvh in part provided by government agencies (NIH and, oddly, DoE). However the development of specific drugs requires a very substantial investment and an equally expensive (and financially risky ) certification process - without which no new drugs would be developed or brought to the market.

Moreover, despite the large sums spent on promotion, the research spending od for profit organizations exceeds that of government in the development of new drugs.

But their research spending for the actual development of new and unique chemical formulations is a small fraction of the money they spend on promotion and advertising, which is the point. We get the spectacle of their PR boys crying crocodile tears on capitol hill to the pols whose pockets they line every two years . . .

You are dead wrong on this. Both sums are large, but promotion is hardly "a small fraction" of corporate research, development and certification spending - a process that involves years of activity, and costs MORE than promotion.. Moreover much of the promotion itself is required to overcome the equally expensive efforts at suppressing or resisting the use of expensive new drugs by both government and insurers who pay part of the bill. I'll readily agree that profit-making conmpanies will willingly push new drugs that offer only marginal improvements, however without them there would be no innovation.