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)

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

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...

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I must take exception to the notion "We have more freedom than our neighbors." unless you are referring to Greenland.

"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

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

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

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.

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

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

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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/

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
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.

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

Cycloptichorn

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?

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

detano inipo wrote:

Surpluses both achieved and anticipated

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?

detano inipo wrote:

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.

Again entirely irrelative to the bigger picture, again look at the last 50 years. Again you are looking at short term volatility only.

detano inipo wrote:

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.

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.

Chumly wrote:

detano inipo wrote:
The fact is that an operation like that in the US would have cost me my condo instead of $15.
If so, that is certainly not all the so-called "facts" as you could have US health insurance, let alone the lower taxes, lower interest rates, higher US dollar, higher purchasing power, lower taxes, lower governmental debts, that you would benefit from.
detano inipo wrote:
Chumly, you are painting a frightening picture of Canadian conditions based on opinions.
No I am assessing a given contrast.
detano inipo wrote:
We are slowly paying down our debt.
Completely and entirely false. That is short term government supplied rhetoric. The truth is, from a long term perspective of the last 50 years, the amount of debt in absolute and relative terms in any quantifiable measure has massively increased and there is no indications from governments or otherwise that such increasing debts are reversing irrelative of any short term assessments or claims over some few years.
detano inipo wrote:
We are enjoying a surplus for several years now.
A short term irrelevancy against a long term historical trending increase. Look at the long term big picture of 50 years. The short term variations you refer to have nothing whatsoever to do with the historical increases, what you refer to is called volatility and in no way expresses what has happened over the last 50 years.
detano inipo wrote:
Our taxes are going down as well.
Are they really? By exactly how much in real buying power relative to 20 years ago? Please let me know!
-Ever heard of tax creep?
-Ever heard of the $100,000 life time capital gains exemption being revoked?
-Ever heard of the % capital gains rate going up?
-Ever heard of the massive tightening of business deductions?
-Ever heard of being forced to withdraw pension funds earlier?
-Ever heard of OAC claw-back?
-The list of tax increases has been huge over the last 20 years!
detano inipo wrote:
We have more freedom than our neighbors.
Do we? How do you intend to show this vis-à-vis health care, given one cannot opt out of our socialized system?
detano inipo wrote:
Our Canadian dollar is rising and predictions are that our dollar will supass the US dollar in 2010.
That is the most incorrect. It is correct to say that the Canadian dollar has *risen* not that it is so-called "rising", it's not like watching bread.

It is also much more correct to say our dollar has bounced back from extreme lows due to decreased fears of Quebec separation and increasing commodity prices of which our economy is very reliant on.

Further it is 100% speculation to predict what the exchange rates will be in 2010, no one can do such a thing! Just as no one can predict what inflation will be, nor what the stock market will do; specifically the stock market in the short to mid term i.e. less than 15 - 20 years.
detano inipo wrote:
Your finances are in bad shape.
I do not know what you are referring to here but your comment appears out of context, please edify.
detano inipo wrote:
Perhaps you should direct your criticism at your government
I do not know what you are referring to here but your comment appears out of context, please edify.

I am not suggesting with certainty that you "detano inipo" read the Globe & Mail newspaper and/or other popular Canadian media sources but those sources would tend to provide views parallel to yours. But that does not make them correct.

It is rather easy to exempt oneself from poplar political and media rhetoric and do your own research. I would suggest that if you have not done this you start with the Bank of Canada's web site and the US's Federal Reserve web site.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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 . . .

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know