The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Healthcare going forward

gsdx said:
Where is the proof for that? It's the first time you've mentioned it. I Googled it and found nothing except ways for Americans to buy the drugs from Canada.

And why can't you understand that, even with our cheaper prices, our drug companies are STILL making a profit? It's a sad day when you place profits above people's lives.
Click to expand...

Big Pharma and the GOP are both suffering from what Adam Smith warned against as an outcome of capitalism: the loss of what he called "fellow-feeling", i.e. caring about others.

Of course the courts haven't helped, when they have established that those running a business are obligated to maximize return for investors.
 
Kulindahr said:
Big Pharma and the GOP are both suffering from what Adam Smith warned against as an outcome of capitalism: the loss of what he called "fellow-feeling", i.e. caring about others.

Of course the courts haven't helped, when they have established that those running a business are obligated to maximize return for investors.
Click to expand...

I think it is better considered "welfare overload". The calls on the income of a company of individual are virtually infinite. No amount of charity is enough, even with half of Americans getting some form of welfare. At some point you have to say "I have done as much as I can. I am entitled to live too. "
 
Benvolio said:
This is form an article "Why are drug prices lower in Canada.
Click to expand...

Benvolio said:
Her is the citation to the article. :http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2000/05/why_do_drugs_cost_less_in_canada.html
Click to expand...

I read the article and I think you got it wrong. You imply that Canadian companies are selling drugs in the United States for a much higher price, but it is the other way round. The American companies are selling their drugs more cheaply in Canada and other countries so they can sell them for so much more in the States.

Now, what makes me think you got it backwards? Just below your quoted paragraph is this:

In recent months, members of Congress from both parties have introduced bills to stop this drug price discrimination, either by allowing the re-importation of drugs from Canada and Mexico or by requiring U.S. drug companies to offer drugs at one price for all of North America.
Click to expand...

By the way, that article was from 2000. At the time the article was written, Canadian or Mexican drugs were not for sale in the United States. (The legal ones, at least.)

So, your proof does nothing more that show that American companies can sell their drugs in 'controlled' countries at a much lower price and STILL make a profit.
 
gsdx said:
I read the article and I think you got it wrong. You imply that Canadian companies are selling drugs in the United States for a much higher price, but it is the other way round. The American companies are selling their drugs more cheaply in Canada and other countries so they can sell them for so much more in the States.
Click to expand...
To put it simply, they charge Americans a lot of money because Americans will pay it.

The pharmaceutical industry knows that most Americans who have insurance never know how much drugs cost because all they pay is a small copay of $0-75 for most employer-based plans.

Something else to keep in mind: doctors in the US can accept kickbacks from drug companies in the form of consultant fees or discounts. I mentioned this in an earlier post but the ACA requires that the drug companies detail how much money they are paying physicians.

So, there's often a reason why physicians in the US write prescriptions for certain brand names and the price of those drugs covers these payments that the drug companies pay the physician as a reward for prescribing those brands. This also increases the price of the drugs.

You can look up your doctor here:
https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
 
KaraBulut said:
To put it simply, they charge Americans a lot of money because Americans will pay it.

The pharmaceutical industry knows that most Americans who have insurance never know how much drugs cost because all they pay is a small copay of $0-75 for most employer-based plans.

Something else to keep in mind: doctors in the US can accept kickbacks from drug companies in the form of consultant fees or discounts. I mentioned this in an earlier post but the ACA requires that the drug companies detail how much money they are paying physicians.

So, there's often a reason why physicians in the US write prescriptions for certain brand names and the price of those drugs covers these payments that the drug companies pay the physician as a reward for prescribing those brands. This also increases the price of the drugs.

You can look up your doctor here:
https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
Click to expand...

Wow. SCOTUS has tossed out laws for less "appearance of corruption" than this system has!
 
^ (@ KaraBulut) Doctors up here used to give out free samples of medications a long time ago. I don't think they're allowed to do that anymore.
 
gsdx said:
I read the article and I think you got it wrong. You imply that Canadian companies are selling drugs in the United States for a much higher price, but it is the other way round. The American companies are selling their drugs more cheaply in Canada and other countries so they can sell them for so much more in the States.

Now, what makes me think you got it backwards? Just below your quoted paragraph is this:



By the way, that article was from 2000. At the time the article was written, Canadian or Mexican drugs were not for sale in the United States. (The legal ones, at least.)

So, your proof does nothing more that show that American companies can sell their drugs in 'controlled' countries at a much lower price and STILL make a profit.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is silly to think US chooses to sell cheaply in Canada so that they can sell for more in the US. A complete lack of logic. What some in congress have suggested is forbidding US companies from submitting to price controls and prohibiting lower prices in controlling countries. If the Canadians insist on lower prices they will not be able to buy the drugs. Raising prices in other countries would allow lower prices in the US so everyone pays the same.
 
Benvolio said:
This is form an article "Why are drug prices lower in Canada.
" Trouble is, drug companies are willing to sell for less in Canada and elsewhere only because they can sell for more in the United States. They are engaging in what economists call "price discrimination"--that is, charging different prices to different buyers of the same product. Price discrimination works in the drug industry because drugs are very expensive to develop, but fairly cheap to manufacture. As long as companies can recoup their research and development costs by charging high prices in the United States, they can make a profit in Canada and elsewhere by merely covering the cost of making the pill (or tube of ointment or whatever). Similar price discrimination occurs within the United States, with HMOs and other large buyers able to negotiate lower prices while the uninsured pay top dollar."
Click to expand...

So why should we let Americans be taken advantage of like that? Isn't preventing such bad deals for Americans what Trump is always on about?
 
Benvolio said:
Remember that if a company spends huge amounts to develop a new drug, which an individual cannot afford, he has not been injured by the company. The individual is where he would be if the company had done nothing.how many new drugs did the soviet era communists make available? Or ordinary philosophers and liberals? It takes hard work, strong incentive and huge sums of money from past drug sales to get the job done. It is so easy to sit back and say; you other guys should develop new drugs and sell them cheap and accept a tiny profit.
Click to expand...

That's the old horse I was talking about. I'm conflicted, remember? Do no harm is a horror when the remedy is sitting in the cabinet. First hand is rough.
 
Kulindahr said:
So they're getting tax write-offs whether they succeed or fail... which means the taxpayer is de facto subsidizing their research.

Which means they don't need the substantial profits.....
Click to expand...

A tax deduction does not get all or most of the investment back.
 
Stardreamer said:
So why should we let Americans be taken advantage of like that? Isn't preventing such bad deals for Americans what Trump is always on about?
Click to expand...
Attempts have been made to stop Americans from buying cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries. Another suggestion has been to prohibit discrimination, in effect forcing companies not to sell in a country where the prices are controlled at a lower price. Tell Canada "take it or leave it." But the patent makes the formula and process public knowledge and some countries, such as India, have sometimes sold generic copies without honoring the patent. Drug companies would be reluctant to give up the revenue from the price controlled drugs if other companies refused to buy at the demanded price. Even at the lower price, they collect something above the cost of production. We would be more successful prohibiting foreign companies from selling in the US at higher prices than in their home countries.
The American consumer has been subsidizing the socialist countries for decades. But the effect has been the development of a lot of drugs and devices which would not otherwise have happened. If the democrats start controlling prices in the US, research will slow down all over the world.
 
gsdx said:
^ (@ KaraBulut) Doctors up here used to give out free samples of medications a long time ago. I don't think they're allowed to do that anymore.
Kulindahr said:
^
Doctors here still do, usually just enough to find out if it's going to be effective, after which they'll write a prescription.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For accounting purposes, these "free" samples are written off as "marketing expenses". They are dispensed to physicians by the marketing reps and it's what is in those rolling leather cases the sales people always have with them.

The cost of all those free samples and the cost of the marketing materials and expensive packaging is factored into the cost of the drugs. Marketing costs play a role in why Americans pay more, too.

It's true that the idea was to provide "starter" doses for medications like antibiotics or to provide a trial dose of drugs like antihistamines or nasal sprays. But it's also a hook because the patient almost always gets a prescription for the drug along with the sample.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top