Democrats may pass healthcare without a vote!

[1bad65]

They are left alone because of all those lobbyists! Nothing in this Health bill affects drug makers AT ALL. In fact, a provision was REMOVED that allowed Medicare to renegotiate drug prices.

If you think drug makers are left alone, you are sadly mistaken. Look at the Federal intervention just in the developmental stages alone!

The fact that they spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D negates the argument that they MUST charge excessive fees in America to recoup costs for R&D. Cut out the Superbowl TV commercials (aimed at consumers that should not diagnose their own ailments and have no power to purchase the drugs anyway without a doctor's approval) and you can lower the price of my mom's medication, I guarantee it.

People do not need to know new drugs exist. Doctors do. Why advertise depression medication in People magazine, then??? Basically, it entices people to diagnose themselves (Yeah, my legs do seem restless!!), and seek a doctor to validate that diagnoses, who will then write a prescription for that drug.

But MK, who cares how they spend their money? If they screw it up, let them go bankrupt. Obviously what they are doing works on the two biggest issues: 1) they make money, they are profitable. 2) they develop more new drugs than any other country. Success on two major fronts. Why penalize that?

As to perscription abuse, it's not the pharmacutical or the insurance companies responsibility. That's the doctor's responsibility.

[1bad65]

My father in law is a private physician. He has two main complaints: A) drugs are way too expensive and B) insurance companies intentionally make it difficult to collect money owed to him.

Agreed. My wife has experience in this as well.

But let me ask you this question: It is hard to get the insurance companies to pay up, and they are making money. How hard do you think it will be to get the Government to pay up considering they are losing money?

[SanHeChuan]

But do agree with me that the surrent system of rewarding mistakes is not good?

Yes and No. While I admit that some people do game the system by having more kids to get more money, but I don't think it's that common of a phenomenon. If anyone can provide Statistics?

I don’t think there is a problem, in the sense that until there is a solution, there is no problem. Your solution of not giving additional assistance after having so many kids, (how many kids?) is not a good one either politically or financially.

From a financial standpoint, any money you save would have to be invested back into child protective services and related agencies, and then some, to identify, collect, and care for children who cannot be supported by their parents. You can add legal fees to that too.

From a political standpoint you are basically providing a government mandate on how many children someone is allowed to have. Unflattering comparisons to Maoists and Chinas one child law come to mind. Not to mention being discriminatory against cultures that encourage having large families, Catholics for example.

In June 2006, 17 percent of women 15 to 44 years old had one child, 22 percent had two, 11 percent had three, 4 percent had four, and 2 percent had five or more children. Hispanic mothers were more likely to have had one or more children (62 percent) compared with Black-alone women (59 percent) or White alone, non-Hispanic and Asian-alone women (about 52 percent each).
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf

That would put approximately 1 million women with 4 or more kids. Only 200 to 500 thousand is on welfare in a given year, and they don’t all have 4 or more kids. Of the 200 to 500 thousand people on welfare in a year only 20 percent are on it for 5 or more years so that’s 50 thousand people. Most common people found on welfare are single mothers with one kid and statistically a white woman is more common. Also the birth rate among welfare recipients is lower than the national average. So how many people on welfare have 4 or more kids?
http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resour...ths_facts.html

[SanHeChuan]

But MK, who cares how they spend their money? If they screw it up, let them go bankrupt. Obviously what they are doing works on the two biggest issues: 1) they make money, they are profitable. 2) they develop more new drugs than any other country. Success on two major fronts. Why penalize that?

The idea is not to punish them, but NOT reward them for spending more. They have an unfair advantage in the United States, charging more here for their drugs than anywhere else. Why? You say because they spend so much researching the drug. MK's counter argument is that they aren't spends that much on research as most of their budget goes to advertising. So are they charging us more for the cost of research or the cost of advertising? They obviously still make a profit in other countries why do they really need to charge so much here?

[1bad65]

Man San, you're a socialist all right.

Yes and No. While I admit that some people do game the system by having more kids to get more money, but I don't think it's that common of a phenomenon. If anyone can provide Statistics?

I provided statistics on this issue, but I was called a racist.

I don’t think there is a problem, in the sense that until there is a solution, there is no problem. Your solution of not giving additional assistance after having so many kids, (how many kids?) is not a good one either politically or financially.

Of course there is a problem. We are rewarding bad decisions/failure, while punishing good decisions/sucess. This cannot be sustained.

From a political standpoint you are basically providing a government mandate on how many children someone is allowed to have. Unflattering comparisons to Maoists and Chinas one child law come to mind. Not to mention being discriminatory against cultures that encourage having large families, Catholics for example.

How the hell is this a mandate? Are you insane? If you can afford 25 kids, I have no problem with you having 25 kids. But if the taxpayers/workers have to pay for it, I have a huge problem with that.

I can't afford a new Shelby GT500 at the moment, but if the Government sent me large checks for everyone I had, I'd be able to have a whole fleet of them.

As to your stats, I'm against able-bodied people getting a dime of welfare money. Get a friggin job. I have one. And at the rate my taxes are going to go up to pay for this massive entitlement spending, soon I'll likely have two.

[1bad65]

The idea is not to punish them, but NOT reward them for spending more. They have an unfair advantage in the United States, charging more here for their drugs than anywhere else. Why? You say because they spend so much researching the drug. MK's counter argument is that they aren't spends that much on research as most of their budget goes to advertising. So are they charging us more for the cost of research or the cost of advertising? They obviously still make a profit in other countries why do they really need to charge so much here?

Can you show how the drugs are cheaper "anywhere else"? And I mean the exact same drug. Same company, same drug. Not generics or drugs made by another company.

Back that up please.

And again, what business is it of yours or the Government's how they spend their money? They are selling a legal product, and not needing a Gov't bailout to survive. Well, not yet.

[SanHeChuan]

And again, what business is it of yours or the Government's how they spend their money? They are selling a legal product, and not needing a Gov't bailout to survive. Well, not yet.

Because it's the government at the behest of the drug companies that say we can't shop around for a better price. That's why we care. They can charge whatever they want if we can get some free-er market competition up in this piece.

[SanHeChuan]

How the hell is this a mandate? Are you insane? If you can afford 25 kids, I have no problem with you having 25 kids. But if the taxpayers/workers have to pay for it, I have a huge problem with that.

It's not about what it really is. It's about what the political opposition can make it seem like. Misrepresentation of facts the republicans go to move of late.

As to your stats, I'm against able-bodied people getting a dime of welfare money. Get a friggin job. I have one. And at the rate my taxes are going to go up to pay for this massive entitlement spending, soon I'll likely have two.

Most of the people on welfare also have jobs.

[1bad65]

Because it's the government at the behest of the drug companies that say we can't shop around for a better price. That's why we care. They can charge whatever they want if we can get some free-er market competition up in this piece.

Are you speaking about the issue where they can't sell policies across state lines?

[1bad65]

It's not about what it really is. It's about what the political opposition can make it seem like. Misrepresentation of facts the republicans go to move of late.

Get off it. The Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to starve children and force old people to eat dog food.

Most of the people on welfare also have jobs.

But even if true, they don't have good enough jobs to support their lifestyle. That's my problem. They should have to cut back, like I do when I have to. Instead, they just get bigger checks as they make their financial situation worse. And the taxpayers have to pay more. Can you not see this is a recipe for failure?

[MasterKiller]

Can you show how the drugs are cheaper "anywhere else"? And I mean the exact same drug. Same company, same drug. Not generics or drugs made by another company.

Back that up please.

Prices for brand-name prescription drugs are 35 to 55 percent lower in other industrialized countries than in the United States. The central reason for these price differentials is that Canada and most European countries (13 of the 15 countries in Western Europe) directly regulate the prices of prescription drugs. High U.S. prices are said to be necessary to cover the costs of research and development for new and better drugs, given the price levels in Europe and Canada. Americans are increasingly asking why they should subsidize the development of new drugs that are also used by Canadians and Europeans.

The Bush administration has resisted attempts by U.S. consumers to purchase drugs from other nations. Administration officials cite concerns about health and safety as justification for this reluctance to permit importation. Mark McClellan, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), observed that "there is no evidence that unapproved imported drugs are becoming safer or more reliable" and noted that "we are concerned with any measures that increase the flow of these unapproved drugs."


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/14/1375

Americans are either being gouged, or we are subsidizing the drugs for the rest of the world. Either way, it's wrong!

[MasterKiller]

Are you speaking about the issue where they can't sell policies across state lines?

He's talking about the government preventing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and Mexico because the FDA has "fears of quality concerns," even though those drugs are manufactured in the U.S. and then sent to Canada and Mexico in the first place.

[MasterKiller]

But MK, who cares how they spend their money? If they screw it up, let them go bankrupt. Obviously what they are doing works on the two biggest issues: 1) they make money, they are profitable. 2) they develop more new drugs than any other country. Success on two major fronts. Why penalize that?

Drug prices are the same at every pharmacy. Where is my ability to choose when the prices are set, and my only alternative is to wait 10 years for the generic to become available.

As to perscription abuse, it's not the pharmacutical or the insurance companies responsibility. That's the doctor's responsibility.

No one is talking about prescription abuse. What I'm talking about is that drug companies spend millions advertising to an audience that has no ability to decide to purchase those products.

Why is that?

[dimethylsea]

So by your logic anyone who goes to Nevada or Amsterdam has ulterior sexual motives.

Quit being foolish and slanderous. It has no business in a serious discussion.

If a person goes to Nevada and comes back with a stack of poker chips in his pocket.. chances are he went to gamble.

If a American man goes to the Dominican Republic and comes back with a half-full bottle of viagra in his luggage chances are he was being a sex tourist.


This is not foolish or slanderous. It's just logical. I wasn't slamming rush for enjoying the sex trade in D.R.... quite the contrary. Good on him!

I suspect Rush is in the Charlie Sheen category.. he has enough money he doesn't have to pay women for sex.. but purchasing it abroad means the women can't easily sink their hooks in.

[1bad65]

Americans are either being gouged, or we are subsidizing the drugs for the rest of the world. Either way, it's wrong!

It's the second one, and I agree it's wrong.

But lets say we start setting price controls here as well. You have to agree that then the drug companies cannot survive. What will happen then?