Another litany of wise verbiage...

[j2k4]

Addenda to the thread:

Restraints on U.S. private purchase of drugs from Canadian sources are lifted.

Is this good/bad for Canada/Canadians?

For America/Americans?

For the drug companies?

[NikkiD]

Addenda to the thread:

Restraints on U.S. private purchase of drugs from Canadian sources are lifted.

Is this good/bad for Canada/Canadians?

For America/Americans?

For the drug companies?

First, I think that the sale of drugs will mean less drugs available for Canadians, and thus an increase in price to Canadians. That which is more scarce is also more valuable.

On the good side, it brings American dollars into Canada. Americans coming into Canada for drugs will quite possibly buy other things as well, making it good for businesses here.

I won't comment on how it will affect Americans, as, being honest, I'm not sure. Americans living in border cities are more likely buy their drugs here, Americans living away from the border might not, unless they are able to order them from internet sources.

The effect on the drug companies will almost inevitably be negative. They will probably lose money - by losing money I don't necessarily mean they will not show a profit, but their profits will definitely be less than what they would be otherwise. This could mean price hikes, cuts in research and development, even the loss of jobs.

[vidcc]

Addenda to the thread:

Restraints on U.S. private purchase of drugs from Canadian sources are lifted.

Is this good/bad for Canada/Canadians?

problem is the american drug companies are deliberately short supplying Canada so if Americans get their drugs from there Canadians will be short of drugs for themselves

For America/Americans?
For America?..not sure what you mean ... job losses in drug production wouldn't be affected as they are produced here and sold to canada..then sold back...so demand will keep those jobs.

pharmacy jobs? well they need to adapt and buy their supplies and sell them competetively

for American consumers it is a good thing....that said why stop at just Canada? open the world markets up

For the drug companies?

I have little sympathy for them, there is nothing wrong with profit but there is with profiteering. They abused their closed market monopolies and ignored the growing discontent from their customers arrogantly spending money on political lobbying to keep the gravy train running
On the subject of political cosyness, I am not one for conspiracy theories but the timing of taking Vioxx of the shelves with the tort reform policy seems a little too cosy for my liking

This is not an anti big business post, it is about market forces and the need for an open market, not a closed one.... If there is only one store in town one is forced to pay uncompetative prices... Open another close by and prices will start to fall if they wish to keep their customers.

[j2k4]

Vid-

Does it occur to you that prices in Canada (on drugs produced by American concerns) are artificially low owing to "subsidization", i.e., over-charging in the U.S.?

It's not exactly a dirty little secret.

Open the Canadian market to the American purchaser, and the cost to Canadians will go up, and in the end, the benefit to the American consumer will be infinitesimal.

Still sound like a good idea?

BTW-Nikki: On-line shoppers won't make very good tourists.

[vidcc]

J2

has it ever occured to you that the Canadian government uses its buying power to deal on price ? Something our current administration refuses to do.

The ONLY reason for shortages in Canada is a purposely made one where the drug companies limit the supply.

there is no competition in the US market so prices are artifically high.

Edit: Is there any time when you feel that the consumer is important?

[j2k4]

What about my post gives you the idea I am unimpressed with the consumer?

Between my wife and I, about $500 gets spent on drugs every month here-we have no health coverage; I'm talking out-of-pocket expense, and you think I'm not concerned with the consumer!??!!

[vidcc]

What about my post gives you the idea I am unimpressed with the consumer?

Between my wife and I, about $500 gets spent on drugs every month here-we have no health coverage; I'm talking out-of-pocket expense, and you think I'm not concerned with the consumer!??!!

i get the idea from your post being, or at least appearing, anti competition when it comes to the cost of drugs.
Drugs are a commodity like everything else...cars TVs computers etc. and they should be subject to open market forces. However the drug companies have a few advantages.

1. At present they have a monopoly because legally we have no other source.
2. We will always need drugs, unless illness miraculously suddenly ends. It is an infinite market.


you menioned your lack of insurance before....perhaps you could explain life realities to our young conservative friend manny... he seems to think everyone is covered.

do you forsee your expenses reducing in ......the "next 4 more years"?...assuming you stay on the same meds.

[Busyman]

What about my post gives you the idea I am unimpressed with the consumer?

Between my wife and I, about $500 gets spent on drugs every month here-we have no health coverage; I'm talking out-of-pocket expense, and you think I'm not concerned with the consumer!??!!

Yet, do you still support the current admin's way of doing business with drug companies?

Not dealing on price was the dumbest piece of shit verbage put into law.

Ass-backward I say and defies logic.

"Yea, yea GlaxoSmithKlineBeechamWelcom what price are you going sell the drugs for!!!!!.....I've already signed it, write-it down on the check."

[j2k4]

Yet, do you still support the current admin's way of doing business with drug companies?

What do you mean, "Yet, do you still support..."?

When did I say I supported the Bush administration's dealings with drug companies?

Is it your contention that, if I support Bush, I support the policy?

Or that if I didn't support the policy, my support should have logically defaulted to Kerry, as vid also seems to think?

While I'm on the subject of "thinking", do either of the two of you ever engage in that particular activity?

You both need to start looking before you make such absurd leaps.

[vidcc]

What do you mean, "Yet, do you still support..."?

When did I say I supported the Bush administration's dealings with drug companies?

Is it your contention that, if I support Bush, I support the policy?


Not my question to answer however even if you don't support all his policies HE (bush) is of the opinion that he has a mandate from you (as a voter) Even you yourself said the majority have spoken...well 2% more than the minority

Or that if I didn't support the policy, my support should have logically defaulted to Kerry, as vid also seems to think?
When did i say that ?....
but then if you don't support his policies why vote for him? you could have chosen to not vote if the other candidate was so unacceptable.
While I'm on the subject of "thinking", do either of the two of you ever engage in that particular activity?

come now you can do better than that

You both need to start looking before you make such absurd leaps.
At what exactly?
For myself i can only go on what is written, i wouldn't want to try to second guess. I have to take what you say as being what you believe. If you feel you are harshly judged on what you have said please re-phrase it.

..