Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

...talking about National Healthcare...!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Brit, You don't get it?!
    Ok, for those that are mathematically challenged, a lesson in 3rd grade math.

    A pill costs $10.00 to make. This adds in the costs of the research and development along with everything else mandated by the FDA before a drug hits the market.

    In Mexico the government says you can only charge 25 cents. They don't care what it costs to make it. More to that story but we'll save that for later.

    In Canada who also has price fixing which doesn't take into account the cost to create it. You can charge 2.00 a pill.

    For a pair of pills sold in those two countries alone that leaves a short fall of $17.75 each time a pill is sold. That 17.75 would be added on to the cost of the pill sold here bringing its cost to 27.75. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So, would this then explain why American drug companies do not produce drugs in the US, but have it produced outside the country and most of them in 3rd world countries???? Go check your prescription or packaging and see where your drugs come from.
    “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

    Comment


    • This is from six years ago, but I don't think anything has changed. Interesting read.

      http://www.aei.org/EMStaticPage/634?page=Summary

      Comment


      • http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...1546.shtml?tag=stack

        WASHINGTON, Sept. 2, 2009

        Obama Weighs Major Speech on Health Care
        White House Adviser Says President Will Lay Out More Specifics on What He Wants in a Bill

        (AP) President Barack Obama is thinking of throwing more details and personal weight into the debate about a major overhaul of the American health care system, which polls indicate Republicans have been winning in recent weeks.

        Faced with falling approval ratings and increasingly impatient with Senate negotiations, Mr. Obama is considering a speech in the next week or so in which he would be "more prescriptive" about what he feels Congress must include in a health bill, top adviser David Axelrod said Tuesday in an interview. Unlike all other wealthy nations, the United States does not have universal health care.

        The speech might occur before the Sept. 15 deadline the White House gave Senate negotiators to seek a bipartisan bill, Axelrod said. He suggested that two key Republicans have not bargained in good faith.

        Congress reconvenes next Tuesday after an August recess in which critics of Mr. Obama's health proposals dominated many public forums.

        Mark Knoller: Obama Up Against Ideology More than Specificity

        Some Obama allies feel he gave too much leeway to Congress, where one bill has passed three House of Representatives committees, another has passed a Senate committee and a third has been bogged down in protracted negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee.

        Axelrod indicated that Mr. Obama would not offer new proposals but would be more specific about his top priorities.

        "The ideas are all there on the table," Axelrod said. "Now we are in a new phase, and it's time to pull the strands of these together."

        He said there is serious discussion in the White House of Mr. Obama "giving a speech that lays out in specific ways what he thinks" about the essential elements of a health care bill.

        CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

        Axelrod said it was possible that the speech could occur before a planned Sept. 15 Obama address on health care in Pittsburgh.

        Mr. Obama has called for innovations such as a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, but he has not insisted on it. It was not clear Tuesday the degree to which he might press for various proposals in a new speech.

        Mr. Obama also plans to meet with Democratic congressional leaders when lawmakers reconvene next week.

        Axelrod condemned recent comments by two chief Senate Republican negotiators - Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi - who have sharply criticized key elements of Democrats' health care plans even as they insisted that a workable bipartisan plan was possible.

        Their remarks, Axelrod said, "were not exactly consistent with good-faith negotiations."

        In an August fundraising letter, Grassley asked people for "support in helping me defeat Obama-care." He said Democratic-drafted bills would be "a pathway to a government takeover of the health care system."

        Enzi, in a radio address Saturday, said Democratic proposals would restrict medical choices and make the country's "finances sicker without saving you money."

        The two men are part of a six-senator, bipartisan negotiating team that also includes Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. Hopes for a workable bipartisan plan have dimmed in recent weeks, and Axelrod's comments were the most dismissive yet from a White House official.

        Congress' August recess was brutal for Mr. Obama and his allies, as lawmakers faced raucous crowds denouncing Democrats' health proposals. When Congress comes back Tuesday, Democratic leaders hope to change the dynamic by holding quiet, closed-door sessions with nervous colleagues and arguing that far-reaching health care changes can be good politics as well as good policy.

        They also hope Republican-led opposition has peaked. But that's far from clear, and Republicans are eager to hand Mr. Obama his first major defeat.

        A new CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 53 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama's handling of health care, while 44 percent approved. In March, far more people had approved than disapproved.

        Liberal groups have held hundreds of events in a bid to show that a robust overhaul is more popular than August's news reports would suggest.

        The message lawmakers will hear when they return to Washington "will be very different than what they heard when August started," said Jacki Schechner of Health Care for America Now. One idea her group will stress, she said, is that the politically smart vote, even in toss-up districts, will support widespread changes meant to expand health insurance coverage and options.

        Some Democrats say congressional leaders will have to trim more costs from the health bills even though it would antagonize liberals and make it harder to cover uninsured people, one of Mr. Obama's top goals.

        "That's the kind of thing we're going to look at," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the leadership who is tasked with getting his colleagues re-elected.

        Republicans approach the coming legislative session feeling upbeat about the ground they gained during the August recess. Some are confident that no amount of closed-door hand-holding of nervous Democratic lawmakers will reverse the momentum.

        "After a disastrous month at home, the fact that Democrats' new health care strategy is to hide in Washington from the people who elected them to get health care passed shows what bad shape they're in," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican leader John Boehner.

        Comment


        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Brit, You don't get it?!
          Ok, for those that are mathematically challenged, a lesson in 3rd grade math. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          You're not getting it davdah. Why should we not restrict the amount the drugs companies charge by doing the same as Canada etc? I can see an argument for recovery of R&D costs but once those costs are recovered to keep charging the going rate just because they can is crazy. This happens a lot.

          Drug companies often use a tactic to retain the patent on their drug years after R&D costs are recovered. What they do is claim something is new or changed on that drug. Changing the color of the pill or some other cosmetic change usually. By doing so, the FDA allows the patent to be extended. This way it blocks the generic drug companies from producing that drug more cheaply.
          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

          Comment


          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your arguments about patents are foolish. If someone invents something they should be able to reap the rewards for it forever. That is fair. There should be a reward to get, otherwise, why bother? If some other company wants to get in on the action. Let them do the work to make it. Not try to rip someone else's labor off for nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Not when the drug is way overpriced in the first place! If they were to use some commonsense and reduce the price after a period of time, that would be reasonable. A 5yr old movie on DVD isn't priced as a premium just-released one is it? Shouldn't the same philosophy apply in the drug industry where no meaningful change to the drug has occurred?

            If the industry were allowed to retain their patents forever, generic drugs wouldn't exist. Great for the shareholders of the drug company. Bad news for freedom of choice for the consumer (patient). Pay exorbitant prices for routine drugs or go without. Do you have shares in drug companies "no limits" davdah? Don't you think part of the problem with high healthcare costs has to do with drug prices?
            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

            Comment


            • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your arguments about patents are foolish. If someone invents something they should be able to reap the rewards for it forever. That is fair. There should be a reward to get, otherwise, why bother? If some other company wants to get in on the action. Let them do the work to make it. Not try to rip someone else's labor off for nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              Not when the drug is way overpriced in the first place! If they were to use some commonsense and reduce the price after a period of time, that would be reasonable. A 5yr old movie on DVD isn't priced as a premium just-released one is it? Shouldn't the same philosophy apply in the drug industry where no meaningful change to the drug has occurred?

              If the industry were allowed to retain their patents forever, generic drugs wouldn't exist. Great for the shareholders of the drug company. Bad news for freedom of choice for the consumer (patient). Pay exorbitant prices for routine drugs or go without. Do you have shares in drug companies "no limits" davdah? Don't you think part of the problem with high healthcare costs has to do with drug prices? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              You also have to realize that most insurance carriers do not cover non-generic drugs. Way back when already, I had several refused and had to switch to generic. So, it's not only the foreign drug market that controls the drug prices here.
              “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

              Comment


              • The USA has no control over what other countries do regarding their healthcare costs. I understand the economics perfectly well. Your argument is silly. I noticed you haven't answered my question on weather you have shares in the drug/medical industry yet.

                Quite amazing how on the one hand you are against any kind of price control or restrictions placed on private industry ie. "social medicine" and yet quite happy to allow overpriced drugs to be sold in the USA. You can't have your cake and eat it. I suspect you have shares in the industry so you have a vested interest in keeping the prices high.

                Bush tried this approach initially supporting the business by saying imported drugs were not up to US standards. Unfortunately for him the very same drug companies operate in Canada and elsewhere producing the exact same drug but cheaper because they had to.

                People here have already voted with their feet and are now buying routine drugs from abroad. Tell me how the drug companies here expect to benefit from this action? Why pay 3x the cost for the same imported drug from across the Canadian border? Why not drop the price here so that people will buy again from the USA? Isn't that true market economics in action?

                Bush did eventually back down because even he realized that it went against his free market economy ideals.
                "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                Comment


                • Where's the rational debate? Not in NJ for sure. Shouting down a woman in a wheelchair?? Shameful. I hope those that were there, in the cold light of day see themselves now and are embarrassed. Notice this comment comes from an anti-Obama website.

                  Health Care Reform Town Hall: no room for a centrist

                  I never thought I’d see a crowd of people heckle and boo a handicapped woman in a wheelchair. I never thought I’d be called a communist and a shill for big business – both in the same ten minutes.

                  But that was before the debate over federal health care reform came to my hometown, last night, at a town hall meeting on federal health care reform with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6th District).

                  I kind of wish it hadn’t. There was no discussion, no one listened to anyone. Pallone could not open his mouth before being jeered and heckled. Opponents of the health care legislation sponsored by Pallone grew so rabid they at one point began booing people who were asking Pallone NOT to vote for the bill. When one opponent of the bill began her comments by quoting Margaret Mead, she was booed loudly. She was challenging Pallone and was clearly opposed to the bill. But I guess the crowd heard her mention Margaret Mead and assumed, if they were quoting an intellectual, it must be a liberal talking. So they bood her almost out of the joint.

                  Both sides did their share of yelling. I guess they at least got their frustrations out. But for someone like me – who believes we need fundamental health care reform, but maybe HR 3200 is not the way to go about it, there was no relief. And there seems to be no place at all for us in the current debate.

                  mofopolitics.com
                  "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                  Comment


                  • Out of control town hall meetings are happening all over the US. People are angry and have a right to be. The health reform in its current state has no chance of passing in my opinion. They need to regroup when they come back to Washington next week. The Dems and Repubs need to find middle ground. Perhaps if they can do this, the rest of us can do the same.

                    Comment


                    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your arguments about patents are foolish. If someone invents something they should be able to reap the rewards for it forever. That is fair. There should be a reward to get, otherwise, why bother? If some other company wants to get in on the action. Let them do the work to make it. Not try to rip someone else's labor off for nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      Not when the drug is way overpriced in the first place! If they were to use some commonsense and reduce the price after a period of time, that would be reasonable. A 5yr old movie on DVD isn't priced as a premium just-released one is it? Shouldn't the same philosophy apply in the drug industry where no meaningful change to the drug has occurred?

                      If the industry were allowed to retain their patents forever, generic drugs wouldn't exist. Great for the shareholders of the drug company. Bad news for freedom of choice for the consumer (patient). Pay exorbitant prices for routine drugs or go without. Do you have shares in drug companies "no limits" davdah? Don't you think part of the problem with high healthcare costs has to do with drug prices? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      You also have to realize that most insurance carriers do not cover non-generic drugs. Way back when already, I had several refused and had to switch to generic. So, it's not only the foreign drug market that controls the drug prices here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                      Koller,
                      I would be very careful when obtaining drugs outside the U.S. Just because they have the same brand name, it may not have the same strengths, same production cycle, etc.
                      "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                      Comment


                      • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                        The USA has no control over what other countries do regarding their healthcare costs. I understand the economics perfectly well. Your argument is silly. I noticed you haven't answered my question on weather you have shares in the drug/medical industry yet.

                        Quite amazing how on the one hand you are against any kind of price control or restrictions placed on private industry ie. "social medicine" and yet quite happy to allow overpriced drugs to be sold in the USA. You can't have your cake and eat it. I suspect you have shares in the industry so you have a vested interest in keeping the prices high.

                        Bush tried this approach initially supporting the business by saying imported drugs were not up to US standards. Unfortunately for him the very same drug companies operate in Canada and elsewhere producing the exact same drug but cheaper because they had to.

                        People here have already voted with their feet and are now buying routine drugs from abroad. Tell me how the drug companies here expect to benefit from this action? Why pay 3x the cost for the same imported drug from across the Canadian border? Why not drop the price here so that people will buy again from the USA? Isn't that true market economics in action?

                        Bush did eventually back down because even he realized that it went against his free market economy ideals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                        Brit,
                        different countries have different standards for manufacturing pharmaceutical medicines. Some countries have similar standards while other countries are drastically different. But even subtle differences may have disasterous effects. That is why the FDA requires such extensive testing on the product before approval. And if you look at the medicines that have been controversial went through the speedy route.
                        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                        Comment


                        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And if you look at the medicines that have been controversial went through the speedy route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          Very true Hudson, Vioxx was such a drug the FDA dropped the ball on. They relied too much on the manufacturers own data in the approval process and not enough of their own independent testing (which they are supposed to do).

                          Here's an interesting comparison test done on simvastatin tablets from Canada and the USA.

                          "CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest comparable quality assurance manufacturing standards for the US innovator product and the Canadian generic drug products tested."
                          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                          Comment


                          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not avoiding the debate at all. Just got tied up is all. How is my explanation silly. If Canada imposes a maximum price on a drug that is below cost someone has to make up the difference. We are the ones here that get nailed with that. It is true we can't force countries to price according to cost. But, something will have to be done to force them to pony up enough to cover the cost of what their getting. That or they will be cut off. No options since those drugs cost quite a bit to produce. As I said, it's not in the actual production. It's what it takes to make it in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            Nobody is imposing a price. It's negotiated. Just the same way the private insurance companies negotiate drug prices with the suppliers, so do Governments. A drug company is in business to make a profit from it's drug. It isn't gonna go and negotiate a price that would make it not viable. What is different is the amount of profit made on the drug. Instead of say 300% profit on some of the top seller branded drugs, they might have to settle with a 50% profit instead. Note they are still making a profit!

                            Buying in bulk has always attracted discounting. Large insurance companies do this every day. Government would be the largest user of drugs for sure therefore it would have the biggest "clout" when negotiating. The drug companies would still make a profit just not as much as they do now which is why they and their supporters oppose "social medicine".

                            How come drug companies operating in Europe and Canada are still in business? By your assessment, they should all be bankrupt by now. Before you argue they are being subsidized by the US parent company, a subsidiary company is often setup as a separate company by the parent company and run as a totally separate entity with it's own profit centers etc. FedEx is a good example of this. I highly doubt the US parent company would be prepared to prop up the poorly performing foreign company for too long.

                            Remember also some of the world's largest and most successful drug companies are not American. Roche is an example.
                            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                            Comment


                            • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, this just goes to show how we are supporting a world wide welfare system. One that must stop if we are going to enjoy any lowering of cost to us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              Turn that radio off. You've been listening to Rush, Hanity and Savage too much davdah! Yeah right, we're subsidizing the rest of the world
                              "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                              Comment


                              • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not avoiding the debate at all. Just got tied up is all. How is my explanation silly. If Canada imposes a maximum price on a drug that is below cost someone has to make up the difference. We are the ones here that get nailed with that. It is true we can't force countries to price according to cost. But, something will have to be done to force them to pony up enough to cover the cost of what their getting. That or they will be cut off. No options since those drugs cost quite a bit to produce. As I said, it's not in the actual production. It's what it takes to make it in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                Nobody is imposing a price. It's negotiated. Just the same way the private insurance companies negotiate drug prices with the suppliers, so do Governments. A drug company is in business to make a profit from it's drug. It isn't gonna go and negotiate a price that would make it not viable. What is different is the amount of profit made on the drug. Instead of say 300% profit on some of the top seller branded drugs, they might have to settle with a 50% profit instead. Note they are still making a profit!

                                Buying in bulk has always attracted discounting. Large insurance companies do this every day. Government would be the largest user of drugs for sure therefore it would have the biggest "clout" when negotiating. The drug companies would still make a profit just not as much as they do now which is why they and their supporters oppose "social medicine".

                                How come drug companies operating in Europe and Canada are still in business? By your assessment, they should all be bankrupt by now. Before you argue they are being subsidized by the US parent company, a subsidiary company is often setup as a separate company by the parent company and run as a totally separate entity with it's own profit centers etc. FedEx is a good example of this. I highly doubt the US parent company would be prepared to prop up the poorly performing foreign company for too long.

                                Remember also some of the world's largest and most successful drug companies are not American. Roche is an example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                ...and there are tons more: Ciba, Janssen, Sandoz, Schering, Bayer, Merck, Aventis, Sanofi all European Pharmaceutical Corporations with subsidiaries here, but European parents.
                                “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

                                Comment

                                Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                                Home Page

                                Immigration Daily

                                Archives

                                Processing times

                                Immigration forms

                                Discussion board

                                Resources

                                Blogs

                                Twitter feed

                                Immigrant Nation

                                Attorney2Attorney

                                CLE Workshops

                                Immigration books

                                Advertise on ILW

                                EB-5

                                移民日报

                                About ILW.COM

                                Connect to us

                                Questions/Comments

                                SUBSCRIBE

                                Immigration Daily



                                Working...
                                X