65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 03:07 pm
Walter,

Did you read the report you cited???

Its central theme is that OECD countries other than the United States engage in a variery of forms of governmental price controls that raise prices for U.S. consumers and inhibit investment in the research & development of new drugs. It goes on to reoport that the United States encourages the production of generic drugs in the case where patents have expired, both to limit prices and to increase competition. Conversely the price controls imposed by other governments diminish the need for generics and competition, thereby stifling both the free market and the benefist of investment.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 03:09 pm
Walter - might be wrong but think that Bayer bought back the name Aspirin, so it's a registered trademark in the States as well.
http://www.aspirin.com/products_en.html
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 03:29 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Instead, if they do not consent to the government's terms they are faced with a Canadian prohibition of sales in the country and, in many cases, action by the Canadian government to authorize Canadian production of generic substitutes for patented drugs.



A really interesting report shows e.g. that in the USA are quite more generics sold than in Canada.

Generally, generiss are internationally only allowed after the patents expired. Are you really certain that the Canadian government sponsors illegal acts and even without legal action by the patent holders?

And speaking about patents (and trademarks): the USA doesn't consider Aspirin® to be a trademark ....


----------------------------------------------------

Bayer's first major product was acetylsalicylic acid (originally discovered by French chemist Charles Frederic Gerhardt in 1853), a modification of salicylic acid or salicin, a folk remedy found in the bark of the willow. By 1899, Bayer's trademark Aspirin was registered worldwide for Bayer's brand of acetylsalicylic acid, but because of the confiscation of Bayer's US assets and trademarks during World War I by the United States and the subsequent widespread usage of the word to describe all brands of the compound, "Aspirin" lost its trademark status in the United States and some other countries. It is now widely used in the US for all brands of the drug. However in some other countries, such as Canada,Mexico, Germany, and Switzerland it is still a registered trademark of Bayer.

wikipedia.com
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 04:27 pm
When I was in the military back in the late fifties, that's what we called it, "acetylsalicylic acid," instead of aspirin.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 04:32 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
When I was in the military back in the late fifties, that's what we called it, "acetylsalicylic acid," instead of aspirin.


Some old bottles of aspirin smell like acetic acid.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 07:25 am
if you are wondering where some of the money drug companies are spending goes , have a look at the link below .
hbg

Quote:
Spending on direct-to-consumer drug advertising in the United States rose by a staggering 330 per cent in the first decade after drug companies were freed to pitch their wares directly to the public, rising to just under $30 billion for the year 2005, a new study shows.

The work, published in Thursday's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, revealed that new ad campaigns typically start within a year of a drug's arrival on the market - a time when it has been suggested that drug companies should not be allowed to advertise a drug.

Earlier this year a report published by the U.S. Institute of Medicine recommended that the American drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration, bar drug companies from advertising prescription drugs in the first two years after they come to market. It is during that period when a drug first starts to be broadly used that rare side-effects not seen in clinical trials can become evident.

"Our data show that a mandatory waiting period on advertising for new drugs would represent a dramatic departure from current industry practices," wrote the authors, from the University of Pittsburgh, Harvard School of Public Health and Vanderbilt School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn.



full report :
SPENDING ON DRUG ADVERTISING SOARS !
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 07:38 am
hamburger wrote:
if you are wondering where some of the money drug companies are spending goes , have a look at the link below .
hbg

Quote:
Spending on direct-to-consumer drug advertising in the United States rose by a staggering 330 per cent in the first decade after drug companies were freed to pitch their wares directly to the public, rising to just under $30 billion for the year 2005, a new study shows.

The work, published in Thursday's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, revealed that new ad campaigns typically start within a year of a drug's arrival on the market - a time when it has been suggested that drug companies should not be allowed to advertise a drug.

Earlier this year a report published by the U.S. Institute of Medicine recommended that the American drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration, bar drug companies from advertising prescription drugs in the first two years after they come to market. It is during that period when a drug first starts to be broadly used that rare side-effects not seen in clinical trials can become evident.

"Our data show that a mandatory waiting period on advertising for new drugs would represent a dramatic departure from current industry practices," wrote the authors, from the University of Pittsburgh, Harvard School of Public Health and Vanderbilt School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn.



full report :
SPENDING ON DRUG ADVERTISING SOARS !


Also...the millions of FREE samples passed out each day to patients who can't afford to buy the medication.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 11:52 am
Evidently, the drug companies are showering physicians with payola. Recently, a specialist told me that he wouldn't be able to make it absent this.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 11:59 am
Advocate - your acquaintance is in breach of law, not to mention medical ethics, if what you wrote is true. Free samples and influence on prescriptions is perfectly legal, however.

As far as Bayer Aspirin, here's a more reliable source:

Quote:
Bayer A.G., the West German drug and chemical group, said it had paid Sterling Drug Inc. $25 million to buy back partial rights to its Bayer trademark in the United States, ending a prohibition dating from the end of World War I. Sterling will continue to sell aspirin under Bayer's name and symbol in North America. Bayer bought the right to use the trademark on industrial products such as plastics and organic and inorganic chemicals. Bayer, which invented aspirin at the end of the last century, will still be barred from selling consumer products and pharmaceuticals under its own name in the United States.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEEDE1039F934A25752C0A960948260
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 12:05 pm
P.S.


http://www.watson.com/products/search_results_products.asp?currentPage=3&group=generic
Quote:
SPIRIN 325 mg TABLETS MICRO-COATED WHITE 1000s
NDC: 00536-3305-10
*Compare to: Bayer®, Genuine, a registered trademark of Bayer AG


above with preface:

Quote:
The product information presented here is intended for use in the United States only. Countries outside the United States may have different regulatory requirements and review practices that may require referencing different or additional information.

The U.S. Prescribing Information in this product database represents the current product labeling information as of the date of the document.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 01:34 pm
Well, I know a bit about this: a worked for some time in the Bayer archive. :wink:

Since so much was quoted here re the long waiting times under universal healthcare:

my aunt some serious digestive problems. Addionally with her age and due to the fact that she has to take a couple of psycho-pharmaca, it got even worse: she could leave the the bed.

I called her doctor (an inetrnist, fortunately) who looked at her at home, gave some meds.
She didn't want to go to the praxis, but I finally conviced her today.
We didn't have a date, but hadn't to wait longer than 45 mins for a 45 mins check (including ultra-sonics).
A colonoscopy will be done (in the praxis) when she wants to have it done.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 05:36 pm
Advocate wrote:
Evidently, the drug companies are showering physicians with payola. Recently, a specialist told me that he wouldn't be able to make it absent this.


They also provide excellent, free lunchs and dinners.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 05:42 pm
i have sometimes seen drug co reps appear in our doctor's waiting room .
it's always been the same reception for them .
doctor's wife - who is also his secretary - will tell rep : "the doctor is very busy right now ; perhaps you'd like to leave some information and he can contact you when he has some time ! " .
the reps always look rather unhappy !
and he's told us : "those reps must think i have nothing better to do than listening to their spiel ! " .
hbg
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 05:48 pm
No time? That's too bad, when one considers all the free medical literature the reps provide.

Many of the companies also sponsor Summer/Winter seminars in very pleasant vacation spots.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 08:48 am
Tell me something...

If the US healthcare system is so bad,and if systems like the Canadian system are so good,why does a woman come to Montana from Canada to give birth??

Why werent there enough beds in the Canadian healthcare system for this woman?

Quote:
The four girls were born at a US hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units.


Quote:
Health officials said they checked every other neonatal intensive care unit in Canada but none had space.


The whole article can be read here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6951330.stm

Now,if the Canadian system is so much better then ours,there should have been a bed for her somewhere in the entire country of Canada,but there wasnt.

Why is that?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 08:54 am
mysteryman wrote:
Tell me something...

If the US healthcare system is so bad,and if systems like the Canadian system are so good,why does a woman come to Montana from Canada to give birth??

Why werent there enough beds in the Canadian healthcare system for this woman?


The woman went to Montana because of the ready availabilty of neonatal beds in the State of Montana.

Perhaps the birthrate in Montana is so low, neonatal units go unfilled, the majority of the time.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 08:55 am
I think using a single example like that to prove your point is dishonest. Sorry, I just do. It may reveal some flaws in the system buy it proves very little.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 08:56 am
mysteryman wrote:
Why is that?


Because both systems have room for improvement.

There are problems with pretty much every medical system out there.

~~~

Right now, the discussion appears to be about why the American medical is as ineffective and inefficient as it is - in spite of the huge dollars going into it.

Examining other systems - their pros and cons - to see what might help the U.S. system work better, and serve more people (at the same or lower cost) - is a good idea.

~~~

The Canadian system - even with its problems - is getting good results with a lower per capita cost than the U.S. (see pages and pages of reports and stats linked in this thread alone) - there are things to learn from the Canadian system - even as the Canadian system looks around to see what improvements will work for it.

~~~

I think it's sheer silliness to not be interested in how our systems can be improved. More bang for less buck - seems like a good idea for everyone.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 09:03 am
For example, a big problem right now is trying to get docs online

Conference Board of Canada link (download to 68 page report linked at that page)

Quote:


Torstar article on 'highlights' of report.

Quote:
Report shows fewer than 1 in 4 Canadian MDs use electronic records to keep track of patients


Quote:
There are only 29 per 1 million university graduates with advanced research qualifications in health and life sciences compared with an average of 60 per 1 million for the top 10 OECD countries examined. And our universities have lower invention disclosures, patent applications and patents granted.

The report noted there was little collaboration between universities and businesses. Business enterprises fund about 10 per cent of the research performed in Ontario's universities, it stated.

Our researchers do love to publish. In 2005, Canadians produced 714 published articles per 1 million capita, compared with 527 per 1 million, the average for the other OECD comparator countries.



We don't have a lot of medical researchers, but they sure do publish a lot.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 11:49 am
miller wrote :

Quote:
No time? That's too bad, when one considers all the free medical literature the reps provide.


hamburger wrote :

Quote:
perhaps you'd like to leave some information and he can contact you when he has some time ! " .


they are always invited to leave some literature for the doctor to peruse at a time CONVENIENT TO HIM !
hbg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 07:41:42