Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 04/03/2004 4:19:13 AM PST by MikeJ75
Americans taking prescription drugs -- even the most common, highly-prescribed drugs -- uniformly pay far more per pill than their Canadian neighbors.
Late last year, surrounded by a cadre of Republican leaders from Congress, President Bush signed into law the Medicare drug bill. The president heaped praise on the measure, calling it a reflection of the administration's priorities.
"Some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. Some cut down on the dosage, to make a bottle of pills last longer. Elderly Americans should not have to live with those kinds of fears and hard choices," Bush declared. But at no point during his comments did Bush bother to mention the fundamental reason so many seniors have struggled to pay for prescription drugs: per-pill costs.
Compared to the citizens of just about every other industrialized nation, Americans pay a premium for just about every prescription they fill. And those price hikes aren't limited to the most expensive or least common drugs. MotherJones.com has reviewed the average costs for 18 frequently-precribed drugs in the U.S. and Canaada. The results: From arthritis treatments to antidepressants, hypertension medications to menopause drugs, Americans pay more.
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
With all due respect, isn't the real reason because the Canadian Government will only pay a certain amount and not a penny more. They are low balling the drug companies and saying "take it or leave it". The drug companies are taking it because they know they can recoup thier "costs" in the US since no single insurance company has the clout of an entity the size of the Canadian Government.
No, I am not a flaming lefty. My criticism is because under the current prescription drug it will be the US citizen who will be stuck with either higher premiums or higher taxes.
I can't blame the drug companies: they're taking what they can get.
Phooey. The drug companies are discounting the price of drugs to Canada in order to forestall the Canucks from expanding the pharmaceutical industry w/ competing products. The drug companies are protecting their market share.
The thing is, it really doesn't cost much of anything to physically produce a pill--virtually all of the cost involves research, development, and the cost of regulation. Drug companies can accept price blackmail by foreign governments, or even gratuitously offer lower prices to poor countries and still make enough money to cover the cost of production, while earning actual profits on the higher prices American consumers are able to pay.
But let's assume what you say is true, that the pharms wish to protect their market share. So? What company doesn't? I just don't see where all the vitriol comes from when drugs are discussed. It's expensive product, but it's also good product. Do you think it should be free?
Of course nobody is pointing a gun to the heads of the drug companies and making them sell to Canada. They could just not offer the drugs at the price offered by the Canadian Government. They don't have to sell at a "loss";. Since most of their cost is in R&D, the cost of actually producing a pill is low. The drug companies can get higher priced in the US because there is no one entity with significant clout.
Do you think it should be free?
Of course it shouldn't be free, but it should be obtained as cheaply as possible.
The best way to do that is to reduce government involvement, in all countries.
Okay, I'm convinced. Let's pass a law giving Intel the exclusive right to sell microprocessors to Americans - no more shopping around on the world market for the best deal. Within a year, every Pentium will cost you $10,000. Intel will be a good corporate citizen and plow all of the extra money into research and development. Imagine what cool computers the government will be able to buy for you under the forthcoming Medicare Computer Subsidy Act!
The Canadian government fixes the price and you say the drug companies are giving them a discount?That's like pointing a gun at my head, taking my wallet, and calling it a loan.
Not exactly. Another way to look at it is that the drug companies entered into a price fixing scheme with the Canadian gov't in which they negotiated to sell their product at a discount in order to protect their product from being undersold by generic competition and to forestall the development of new patent competition by upstart new companies.
It's expensive product, but it's also good product.
But is it the best product? Or only the best products currently available? Did American manufactured cars become better products when American car companies were faced w/ foreign competition? Can you imagine the ''vitriol'' if General Motors or Daimler Chrysler sold their cars to Canadian consumers at a 20-40% discount of what American consumers paid? Will that be the next ''deal'' that the Canadian government will demand? And if they do, will the price to American consumers increase?
Do you think it should be free?
Non sequitur. I made the charge that drug companies are engaged in discriminatory product pricing and that they are motivated to do so in order to protect market share and impede competition. To which you replied: So what? And to which, I ask, ''Do you think that Canadian consumers have a monetary obligation to support the development of new products or should they simply continue to ride at a significantly reduced fare while American consumers continue to subsidize the price of their ticket?''
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.