They going to pull Arnold's Republican card...

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Tigeress
mmm... makes sense.

I always assumed the FDA was funded 100% by taxpayer dollars and not at all by the drug companies.



TIGERESS

Here's an eye opener for you:

"Approximately half of the FDA’s budget for regulating the drug industry comes from the drug industry itself, in the form of fees paid to speed up the process of drug approval."

[AKIron]

From the same state that gave us Ronald Reagan. The times, they are a changin'.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Here's more: In Canada, the drug companies cannot advertise to their drugs directly to the consumer, i.e TV and radio commercials. In the US, the drug companies spend over 3 billion a year on advertising. Guess  who pays for this? That's right, the average Joe.  Just like any other product you buy, advertising costs are built into the price of drugs.  

False

All drugs and health products approved by Health Canada can be advertized.

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Another reason: The Canadian govt puts caps on how much drugs cost there.  That's a good thing  right?  WRONG! .. unless you are Canadian or buy there. The drug companies have to make a profit to stay in business so they absorb their losses in Canada and make up for it by raising prices elsewhere... like the US.

Not quite

unlike the portrayal in the popular media, not all prescription drugs have regulated prices in Canada; only those with existing patents may be subject to price controls (Anis & Wen, 1998).

To determine what constitutes an excessive price, the PMPRB compares the prices of the drug in other industrialized countries, the prices of similar drugs used to treat the same illness in Canada, and changes in the Canadian consumer price index (PMPRB, 2003). (Note: The PMPRB compares the price of Canadian drugs with the average price of the same drug in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States). These regulations essentially create a price ceiling for certain drugs. Additionally, the provincial health plans are responsible for negotiating a price with drug manufacturers. Since these provincial health plans act as a single-payer system, they have considerable monopsony power in negotiating prices (Anis & Wen, 1998; Pecorino, 2002). Monopsony refers to the situation in which there is a single demander of a good or service; this is analogous to the more familiar monopoly in which there is one supplier.

Originally posted by SteveBailey
another: The exchange rate: while this has evened out recently, in recent past the Canadian dollar was only at 60 to 70% of the US dollar.

Not quite. US market is closed for drug imports ie protected market with unrestricted pricing....

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Another:  The costs of the FDA.  This could be construed as part of R&D. It is the FDA's job to "  take clear steps to try to make sure that those products are safe and effective, or accurately labeled, not misbranded, not adulterated"
 In Canada for instance, there is no entity like the FDA.

Wrong.
Ever heard of Health Canada?

Originally posted by SteveBailey
This is why the drug companies had such a fit over American buyers buying drugs online from Canada. It isn't greed, it's simple economics. They cannot afford to sell their products at Canadian costs worldwide

BS

[Curval]

Boy does this thread need one of these:



(shamelessly stolen from the FDB site)

[Fury]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Here's more: In Canada, the drug companies cannot advertise to their drugs directly to the consumer, i.e TV and radio commercials. In the US, the drug companies spend over 3 billion a year on advertising. Guess  who pays for this? That's right, the average Joe.  Just like any other product you buy, advertising costs are built into the price of drugs.

Something about this has never set right with me....drug companies advertising prescription medicine directly to the consumer.  They already 'advertise' directly to the providers; the only thing I can come up with is that the drug companies want more money and so they advertise to the consumer.  That just pushes up the price of the pill; why don't they take that 3 billion and drop the prices or put it in R&D?

And crockett, do you think drug companies are in the business of drugs just to make money?  I'd sure hope not, eh?

[crockett]

Originally posted by Fury
Something about this has never set right with me....drug companies advertising prescription medicine directly to the consumer.  They already 'advertise' directly to the providers; the only thing I can come up with is that the drug companies want more money and so they advertise to the consumer.  That just pushes up the price of the pill; why don't they take that 3 billion and drop the prices or put it in R&D?

And crockett, do you think drug companies are in the business of drugs just to make money?  I'd sure hope not, eh?

Well how else would we know that we had little carton monsters living under our toenails?

[Shuckins]

All reasonable arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, I am not comforted by the thought that our government, the government that has guaranteed the future insolvency of the social security system, may take over the health-care system.

Label me paranoid and cynical.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Here's an eye opener for you:

"Approximately half of the FDA’s budget for regulating the drug industry comes from the drug industry itself, in the form of fees paid to speed up the process of drug approval."

OOOH MY GOD

TIGERESS

[lazs2]

crock-it..  If I am failing to understand you it is because you are not making yourself clear because.. .as usual.. you really don't even know what you think.

If you claim that every other civilized country in the world has a workable system as you have done... then you must be for socialized medicine where those who won't pay get their care paid for by those who can.    

You can put it any way you want but if you want to copy other countries as you claim then what you want is socialized medicine.   You want to limit what people providing a service can charge and do that by force of government.   You also want to take away money from some to pay for others.   you did not deny this earlier.. earlier you said that was fine with you since you were forced to pay for stuff you didn't want all the time.

so, I asked you if you thought that doing one thing wrong gave us a reason to add to that and you never answered.. instead... you went on to some BS about me not understanding something as simple as warming and cooling happening to the planet.    and... you started spouting off on "regulation"

What "regulation" would you impose that would give everyone health insurance and not be socialism... not extort from some to pay others?    What regulations would you impose?

lazs

[Tigeress]

Drug advertizing...

Saw a new one just the other day on TV... when listing possible side effects they said... "and may ocassionally be fatal" as if they were talking about bloating or something

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Shuckins
All reasonable arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, I am not comforted by the thought that our government, the government that has guaranteed the future insolvency of the social security system, may take over the health-care system.

Label me paranoid and cynical.

Amen to that! Perhaps France can be contracted to run it.
This is the age of globalization and out-sourcing, is it not?

hahahahahaha

TIGERESS

[crockett]

Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it..  If I am failing to understand you it is because you are not making yourself clear because.. .as usual.. you really don't even know what you think.

If you claim that every other civilized country in the world has a workable system as you have done... then you must be for socialized medicine where those who won't pay get their care paid for by those who can.    

You can put it any way you want but if you want to copy other countries as you claim then what you want is socialized medicine.   You want to limit what people providing a service can charge and do that by force of government.   You also want to take away money from some to pay for others.   you did not deny this earlier.. earlier you said that was fine with you since you were forced to pay for stuff you didn't want all the time.

so, I asked you if you thought that doing one thing wrong gave us a reason to add to that and you never answered.. instead... you went on to some BS about me not understanding something as simple as warming and cooling happening to the planet.    and... you started spouting off on "regulation"

What "regulation" would you impose that would give everyone health insurance and not be socialism... not extort from some to pay others?    What regulations would you impose?

lazs

Larz if you would stop arguing with me just for sport, long enough to read what I posted. You would see how I think we can drastically cut the cost of health care in this country. Without costing you a penny more in taxes. You would save money.

Yes I would love free quality health care. However Im' smart enough to understand it will never happen in this country. Hence the reason I have said "AFFORDABLE" health care over and over and over. yet youi keep ignoring that and continue on and on with the same rant about commie's.

Steve sorry man you come up with a lot of stuff there but being in the profession or not, I don't think you know everything about it.

Really man do you honestly think they would sell their products in Canada if they were losing money? Sorry bud I don't buy it.

2bighorn has it on the mark as far as Im' concerned.

Oh and you brought up commercials as a reason. Lets get real man. Why do companies advertise? Simple so they can sell more product.  Do we really need advertising for every drug on the market.

Last time I checked it's the doctor whom is supposed to know what to prescribe his patents. I never knew I was supposed to tell him what I wanted because I saw it on TV or in a magazine.

While Canada's system might not be perfect, I've yet to ever hear a Canadian whom would trade their system for ours. They damn sure have the right aditude toward their price caps.

[SteveBailey]

Bighorn, you're just being an argumentative *******. I'm trying to have a civil conversation.  save your text,  you are on my ignore list.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Amen to that! Perhaps France can be contracted to run it.
This is the age of globalization and out-sourcing, is it not?

hahahahahaha

TIGERESS

That's probably the best solution yet.

[Nashwan]

   Another reason: The Canadian govt puts caps on how much drugs cost there. That's a good thing right? WRONG! .. unless you are Canadian or buy there. The drug companies have to make a profit to stay in business so they absorb their losses in Canada and make up for it by raising prices elsewhere... like the US.

The retail price of drugs in the US is much higher. The money the drugs companies receive from sales is similar in both countries (and the UK, Germany etc) is actually much the same.

That's because the big insurance companies in the US negotiate the same sort of discounts foreign governments do. So the vast majority of drug sales in the US are well below retail price.

The difference is foreign governments typically negotiate prices that apply throughout the country, whereas insurance companies only want low prices on their own purchases. That's why an individual in the US has to pay so much more for his pharmaceuticals.

The end result is that the drug companies make their profits in all countries, at similar levels. Those who get drugs through their insurance companies in the US get the same sort of deal Canadians do. The only ones paying more are small numbers of retail purchasers in the US.