Health Care BS

Comments 16

1. Robert wrote:

   “In other words, he believes that reimportation would reduce domestic pharmaceutical prices.”

   umm no, what he said was:
   “Congress needs to … cut unnecessary FDA regulations”

   In other words don’t put words in place of the real words. Word!

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 9:35 am ¶
2. Catron wrote:

   It’s obvious that the “benefit” to which he refers is reduced prices. Why else would he also connect the current policy to “rising costs”?

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 9:50 am ¶
3. Warren wrote:

   No, what reimportation would do is force pharmaceuticals to charge the same amount in Canada as they do here in the US. In other words it would put an end to the US drug takers subsidization of Canadian (and European) socialized medicine. Once Canadians start having to pay their own freight for health care, we’ll hear a lot less aboot how we should be more like them.

   Ron Paul (as is so often the case) is exactly right on this issue.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 9:52 am ¶
4. Catron wrote:

   No, Warren, the drug companies would simply cut their sales to Canada. This would, in turn, force the Canadians to reduce sales to the U.S. Market forces cannot be suspended by government fiat, even if Ron Paul is involved.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 10:32 am ¶
5. William Lambert wrote:

   I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. I will vote for him when given any opportunity. I support him in a small way financially. I support him and talk about him in whenever I get a chance. I do disagree with this position though. While I applaud him for wanting government to work to reduce the cost they put on drug manufacturers, I think this is the only thing government SHOULD do in this area. Canada and other countries have price ceilings. Drugs are cheaper there because their governments say they have to be. If we want to talk about the pros and cons of price regulation here in the States, lets have that debate, but lets not sidestep the issue by letting other countries make those decisions for us. Prices won’t go up in those other countries because their governments are screwing with market forces by setting price ceilings. My personal stance is that if we worked to discourage drug price regulation worldwide then drugs would be cheaper for everyone AND the drug companies would have the incentive they need to continue developing cures for man’s diseases.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 10:36 am ¶
6. Catron wrote:

   Well said, William. Everyone would be much better off if all governments would stop meddling with the market.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 10:56 am ¶
7. Avery Knapp wrote:

   Milton Friedman said we should stop price controls and tarrifs UNILATERALLY if necessary. The same goes for importing pharmaceuticals, the law against which is essentially a tarrif. If another country can make drugs or steel or cars or whatever cheaper, let them and give us the best price.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 11:59 am ¶
8. Catron wrote:

   Follow the link (in my post) to the Heritage site. It explains in some detail why allowing importation won’t result in cheaper prices here. And importation will CREATE a price control situation for us, with the rate being set in Canada.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶
9. ctsc wrote:

   There is absolutely zero evidence that lowering the massive premiums over profit that drug companies get on their products would reduce their commitment to R&D. In fact, the opposite follows logically, if drug companies cannot depend upon their old revenue streams (i.e. drugs they already make) to provide them with monies now and in the future they will be forced to develop new ones.

   Posted 10 May 2007 at 3:09 pm ¶
10. Rob McP wrote:

    Hey David, nice site. I just stumbled across it today and wanted to weigh in since I have been a “reimporter” for almost six years now.

    First let me say, there is no free market for pharmaceuticals in North America. Not since Europe started parallel trading in 1985.

    Once Big Pharma got wind of this scheme, I’m certain they ran screaming to Capitol Hill with lobbyist in tow. Hence, we have the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987. Which Ronald Reagan signed reluctantly because he knew it would restrict free trade (see signing statement). Here is part of the summary:

    “H.R.1207
    Title: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban the reimportation of drugs produced in the United States, to place restrictions on the distribution of drug samples, to ban certain resales of drugs by hospitals and other health care facilities, and for other purposes”.
    Sponsor: Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-16] (introduced 2/24/1987) Cosponsors (41)
    Latest Major Action: 4/22/1988 Became Public Law No: 100-293.

    Smacks of government-granted monopoly to me but, in essence it’s immaterial since we generally ignore it. Reimportation is no longer an issue because Big Pharma has cut off supply to virtually every “reimported” drug.

    Most drugs we sell today are imported. From where you say? Hold on to your hats boys and girls! From Europe, New Zealand, Australia and the largest player in the pharmaceutical industry today……India. Yes, I said India.

    There are more FDA approved, (yes I said FDA approved) manufacturing facilities in India than Europe and probably the U.S. by this writing. Why would the FDA have to approve them? Because they are manufacturing for the U.S. market.

    The cost to do so is pennies on the dollar for Big Pharma. How do I know? Because my network (very quietly) contracted for the generic drugs made in the same facilities.

    I gave you this background information to tell you this, there is a reason why prices have not gone down in the U.S., it’s because Big Pharma owns it and they are not about to pass a savings on to any American citizen - period.

    Prices to consumers from our network have continuously decreased because we do what most decent, well-respected companies do in America, we purchase at the best price we can, take a reasonable profit, and pass the savings on to the buyer. We do not attempt to control competition or markets.

    Thanks for the opportunity to post,

    Rob McPherson

    Posted 10 May 2007 at 3:23 pm ¶
11. Catron wrote:

    CTSC, you’ve got it backwards. The potential for profit is what drives innovation. If the drug companies believe our masters in Washington are going to prevent them from making a profit, they won’t bother to develop new products.

    Posted 10 May 2007 at 3:25 pm ¶
12. Catron wrote:

    Thanks for your comments, Rob. I’m not claiming the drug companies are as pure as the driven snow. They are definitely interested in making money (and lots of it). But I can’t see reimportation working the miracles its supporters seem to expect.

    Posted 10 May 2007 at 3:38 pm ¶
13. Rob McP wrote:

    My pleasure, David! You are exactly right, reimportation will work no miracles whatsoever. Not as long as there are two pharmaceutical lobbyists for every member of Congress. Not as long as they continue to buy market control and eliminate competition. That was my overriding point.

    Posted 10 May 2007 at 4:14 pm ¶
14. Catron wrote:

    Rob, the reason reimportation won’t work has to do with the market. This would hold true even in the absence of lobbyists. It could theoretically work if the other countries involved (e.g. Canada) would remove their price controls and tariffs, but that isn’t going to happen.

    Posted 10 May 2007 at 9:07 pm ¶
15. Rob wrote:

    How is the Cato kool-aid these days?

    Posted 12 May 2007 at 10:30 am ¶
16. Catron wrote:

    Not bad. It helps wash away the bitter aftertaste of “Big Pharma” conspiracy theories.

    Posted 12 May 2007 at 11:18 am ¶

Post a Comment