Canada - Healthcare "Parasite"

[petros]

Think purple...nexium and prilosec. EXACT same pill just repackaged and renamed because of being new could be justified and billed to insurance co and programs like hellcananda. They swear up and down they are different but the only difference is classification and patent protection.

How about the renaming of paxil and prozac and selling them off with new lists of symptoms coverage and new names even though it is proven they are addictive and lead to high rates of suicide?

Both are entangled in lawsuits for LACK of testing and lying about it not being addictive.

Testing for Paxil was done on homeless people in Baltimore with extremely piss poor data compilation and follow up.

The list is endless as new complaints are filed daily against big pharma.

If you want to answer this question about whether drugs are worth what they claim look at their profits and the number of lawsuits paid out over the years.

It obviously still pays to kill, maim, destroy lives and families.

When legal costs supersede profits we'll get real medicine for real diseases but by then you'll be dead.

By the way... Can you name one disease a drug company has cured?

Publicly funded institutions find cures, drug companies just do the marketing and you pay twice.

The R&D costs myth is pathetic.

 

[petros]

But why cheaper in Canada? This is why:

The prices for patented medicines (broadly prescription pharmaceuticals) in Canada are
controlled federally by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB). It uses
international price benchmarking to regulate Canadian prices, in effect creating price
ceilings. The Canadian price for new products cannot be more than the average price of
the seven international peers the PMPRB uses as the reference group. According to Roger
Martin, in 2003, Canadian prices for patented medicines were about 5% below the
international median.
In addition to federally regulated prices, provincial governments, who deliver most health
care services in Canada, have a number of policies that affect prices. All provinces
provide drugs for a large share of their population, generally seniors and those on lowincomes.
Here the control mechanism revolves around the provincial formulary, or the
list of drugs approved for reimbursement by the province. Although people not covered
by the provincial drug plans are free to buy outside the formulary, in practice being off
the formulary means that a drug cannot really penetrate the provincial market to any
significant extent. Moreover, the province will become a bulk purchaser of many of the
drugs on the formulary (for e.g. hospitals, etc.), giving them extra leverage on cost. Thus,
provinces negotiate hard with drug companies on the price they will reimburse before
approving a medication for the formulary. This means that the negotiations on price are
not really normal negotiations because the provinces hold the “hammer” of controlling
access to that essential listing on the provincial formulary. In Ontario, our largest
province, a price freeze has been in effect [FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]since 1994 ​

on pharmaceuticals on the​

formulary.

[/FONT]

 

[Niflmir]

Niflmir. I am interested in whether or not the OP is correct. I am not interested in an esoteric argument about patent laws or philosophical discussions about whether or not we are all truly free. If you wish to proceed down that tangent, I am not interested in participating.

SirJoseph. If you are interested in serious discussion, don't make ad hominem attacks and address the issue. Simply because someone is of a political persuasion does not mean his argument is wrong.

The issue is this - Do Americans subsidize Canadian drug prices by paying the full fixed costs whereas Canadians only pay for the variable costs?

As I said, I do not know if it is true or not. I suspect it is not. But so far, no one has addressed the issue.

Look Toro, let me talk to you like a child.

You are not really interested, you're just lazy. Otherwise you would have gone here and not here.

If you understood what a red herring was you would have realized I answered your question a long time ago. All this piece deserves is a one sentence reply, and you have really dragged it out too much.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJoseph

No doubt you would say the same thing if a very liberal American extolled the virtues of Canadian medicare and the evils of the American system.

Or is there a double-standard on skepticism dependent upon ideology?

I do not know if the OP is correct. However, one would look pretty silly if one dismissed it out of hand because of ideology and it turned out to be true.

Indeed I would Toro; a liberal praising Canadian health care system means nothing. If an independent reporter or (Still better) a conservative extolled virtues of Canadian system, that will carry a lot of weight.

Similarly, if the article had been written by an independent or (Still better) a liberal journalist, it would carry a lot of weight. But written by a right wing ideologue, it is just propaganda, nothing more.

 

[ironsides]

In most cases these drugs are developed in U.S., or any large pharmaceutical company. When the patent for the drug runs out, other companies are allowed to make a so called generic version and sell it much cheaper than the brand name. That is the legal way, then we have option 2 where the foreign country just makes a counterfeit drug. Are these drugs as good as the original, maybe, but there is always that chance you are not getting the correct pill or dosage needed.

"The drug research and production industry is not a cheap one. Several million dollars can go into the development of a new drug. The global pharmaceutical industry insists that patents provide incentive to research and produce more drugs. Were it not for the monopolistic rights that drug companies hold, it would not be worthwhile to invest time and money that it takes to develop new drugs. It is obvious that if these pharmaceutical companies do not produce drugs, there will be no drugs to fight over. "
"Yet developing countries do not concur. The fact remains that the drugs made available by today's pharmaceutical giants are simply not affordable. In order for people in developing countries to gain access to medication, they must either produce their own generic drugs or import generic drugs from other countries. Both of these options leave them at the mercy of the large pharmaceutical companies, who jump at the opportunity to charge the smaller countries with patent infringement."

patent wars on AIDS drugs

 

[darkbeaver]

Toro

I do believe that Americans generally subsidize the world for healthcare but I never thought it was because of the fixed costs of pills.

This can't even be admitted for consideration except it reveal The Great Satan in all his imperial corruption, do not think it borders the insane for verily it is insanity itself. How Americas health mission to the world could be misconstrued as subsidy when it is in fact bald usery defys common sense and the facts. It is of course another manifestation of the ill health of the American mindset at this time in the nations evolving collapse. Of course we will hear the lamentations and wailings of how the empire was undone by it's charity and it's manifest need to liberate mankind.

 

[ironsides]

Without the American Pharmaceutical companies this world would be ravaged in sickness. Where does this imagination come from to develop these so called wonder drugs, not anyplace but America, of course there are exceptions but they are few and far between. Other countries are good at copying us, but lack originality.

 

[ironsides]

Toro is right: Americans pretty much subsidize the so called third world's healthcare system. Look at Haiti for example, they are a destroyed country being supported and rebuilt by the U.S. We are not bad guys as some infer, yes we did decimate our darkbeaver population, were sorry, but even they are making a comeback.

 

[Cliffy]

Toro is right: Americans pretty much subsidize the so called third world's healthcare system. Look at Haiti for example, they are a destroyed country being supported and rebuilt by the U.S. We are not bad guys as some infer, yes we did decimate our darkbeaver population, were sorry, but even they are making a comeback.

It is that unjustifiable arrogance that pisses of the rest of the world. What you call subsidizing is considered imperialism everywhere else. The world does not hate Americans for their benevolence and freedom, it does so because it is a bullying, self righteous, dominating, imperialist colonizer. Watch team America. It tells it like it is.

 

[Kreskin]

The amount of money spent on advertising to create a market for drugs is costly. Canadians don't advertise the need for drugs so that cost isn't passed on to healthcare users.

What do they do in Europe? Merck is two separate companies. One in US and one in Europe. Do the Euro drug makers advertise what they create? I don't know the answer but am curious to find out.

Edit to add that the Canadian subsidiary of Merck is a subsidiary of the European version.

 

[captain morgan]

Toro is right: Americans pretty much subsidize the so called third world's healthcare system. Look at Haiti for example, they are a destroyed country being supported and rebuilt by the U.S. We are not bad guys as some infer, yes we did decimate our darkbeaver population, were sorry, but even they are making a comeback.

No one has a gun to the head of US pharma threatening them to sell cheaper to non-US citizens. Further, the profits that are enjoyed by these same companies are generated mostly (on a % basis - combined) from the sale of their products outside the USA.

Assuming that the contention that US pharma is 'subsidizing' all nations, then it would be in their best interests to NOT sell outside the US and maximize their ROI... The reality is that the drug prices in the US are higher because the market allows for such, not because of some fantasy about these companies being charitable. Many of these companies approach large healthcare providers or systems (ie socialized) and view it as an opportunity to strike massive deals to supply large markets with their product at a reduced price in exchange for some form of preferred treatment or exclusivity over competitors... Tell me that doesn't do more harm to their industry over-all in the long-run than it does for the one company that gets the concessions.

In the end, it's a free market society and occassionally, it canabalizes itself.

 

[Toro]

Yes Niflmir, that's right. You're just too clever for all of us.
:roll::roll:
(And I cannot see your link because of the forum's software.)

Petros brought up the PMPRB. The PMPRB relies on international benchmarking. But by being the median price, that means someone will always be paying more than Canada, which means that Canada could be relying on the kindness of strangers to subsidize our drug purchases.

The math works like this. If it costs $100 million to develop a drug, and the drug company thinks it can sell 20 million units in the US, the fixed cost is $5 per pill. If the variable cost is $5 per pill, and the company needs to earn $2 per pill to earn its cost of capital, the cost of the drug will be $12 per pill in the US.

However, since the fixed costs are already sunk and paid for in the US, the drug company can still make money by charging less in Canada by charging more than the variable cost. So the drug company can charge $5 for the variable cost and $2 dollar in profit for a total of $7 per pill in Canada.

That is how drug prices could be 40% less in Americans and could be subsidizing Canadian health costs. If sunk costs were spread across both countries, and assuming the company could sell 2 million pills in Canada, the cost of the drug in both countries would be $11.55 ($100MM/22MM + $5 + $2), not $12 in America and $7 in Canada.

Even if you thought the drug companies were greedy and you cut their profit margins in half (the net profit margin for Pfizer is 20%), the price of the drug would be $10.55, substantially higher than the $7 being paid in Canada.

 

[ironsides]

It is that unjustifiable arrogance that pisses of the rest of the world. What you call subsidizing is considered imperialism everywhere else. The world does not hate Americans for their benevolence and freedom, it does so because it is a bullying, self righteous, dominating, imperialist colonizer. Watch team America. It tells it like it is.

You consider benevolence arrogance, your not alone, a lot of people and countries do also. Somebody offers you money so your home won't be foreclosed, you take the money then resent them because they tried to helped you out. Most of the world knows they can never (at least up to now) compete with the U.S.. The rich do and have always helped the have-nots, and these have-nots have always resented it. To bad, but this a condition we have will probably continue for a while. The condition of the others is called envy.

 

[Niflmir]

Yes Niflmir, that's right. You're just too clever for all of us.
:roll::roll:
(And I cannot see your link because of the forum's software.)

Petros brought up the PMPRB. The PMPRB relies on international benchmarking. But by being the median price, that means someone will always be paying more than Canada, which means that Canada could be relying on the kindness of strangers to subsidize our drug purchases.

The math works like this. If it costs $100 million to develop a drug, and the drug company thinks it can sell 20 million units in the US, the fixed cost is $5 per pill. If the variable cost is $5 per pill, and the company needs to earn $2 per pill to earn its cost of capital, the cost of the drug will be $12 per pill in the US.

However, since the fixed costs are already sunk and paid for in the US, the drug company can still make money by charging less in Canada by charging more than the variable cost. So the drug company can charge $5 for the variable cost and $2 dollar in profit for a total of $7 per pill in Canada.

That is how drug prices could be 40% less in Americans and could be subsidizing Canadian health costs. If sunk costs were spread across both countries, and assuming the company could sell 2 million pills in Canada, the cost of the drug in both countries would be $11.55 ($100MM/22MM + $5 + $2), not $12 in America and $7 in Canada.

Even if you thought the drug companies were greedy and you cut their profit margins in half (the net profit margin for Pfizer is 20%), the price of the drug would be $10.55, substantially higher than the $7 being paid in Canada.

Why exactly have you assumed that the amount that they can sell is not dependent on the price? Your analysis really doesn't make any sense because of that.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I don't even pretend to understand the "why" behind the pricing of drugs
inside, and out of, the USA. I do have an story to share though...

My Daughter-in-Law emigrated from the USA to Canada. Growing up,
if she got sick, she could go to a Doctor and fill a prescription only if her
Mothers Credit Cards where paid down, and the utility bills & rent where
caught up...otherwise it was just beyond their means. That $200 or so for
an appointment & filled prescription might as well have been $200,000.00

On the flip side of the coin though, The cost just to go to an Optometrist in
Saskatchewan and get (not fill) a prescription for contact lenses is more
than the cost just to go to an Optometrist in and a years supply of disposable
contact lenses in Utah.

My Daughter-in-Law is loving the fact that if she gets sick in Canada, she
can got to a Doctor, get a prescription, fill it, and most likely get change
back from a $20 bill. She'll refill (after an eye exam) a years supply of
disposable contact lenses in Utah the next time she goes down to visit...

 

[darkbeaver]

You consider benevolence arrogance, your not alone, a lot of people and countries do also. Somebody offers you money so your home won't be foreclosed, you take the money then resent them because they tried to helped you out. Most of the world knows they can never (at least up to now) compete with the U.S.. The rich do and have always helped the have-nots, and these have-nots have always resented it. To bad, but this a condition we have will probably continue for a while. The condition of the others is called envy.

Canadians are only slightly removed from the American condition and that slight removal is in fact illusion. I have talked to and read many Americans who are in fact of a similar mind as I am. You are in no way indicative of the best of American thinking. Nobody the least bit aware of the calamity unfolding has anything but pity and remorse for the American condition where we find great promise of benevolence and justice despoiled completely by greed and pride. Who are the rich and how will we know and count them?

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't even pretend to understand the "why" behind the pricing of drugs
inside, and out of, the USA. I do have an story to share though...

My Daughter-in-Law emigrated from the USA to Canada. Growing up,
if she got sick, she could go to a Doctor and fill a prescription only if her
Mothers Credit Cards where paid down, and the utility bills & rent where
caught up...otherwise it was just beyond their means. That $200 or so for
an appointment & filled prescription might as well have been $200,000.00

On the flip side of the coin though, The cost just to go to an Optometrist in
Saskatchewan and get (not fill) a prescription for contact lenses is more
than the cost just to go to an Optometrist in and a years supply of disposable
contact lenses in Utah.

My Daughter-in-Law is loving the fact that if she gets sick in Canada, she
can got to a Doctor, get a prescription, fill it, and most likely get change
back from a $20 bill. She'll refill (after an eye exam) a years supply of
disposable contact lenses in Utah the next time she goes down to visit...

Can you imagine the system we could build if only we could get the bankers out of the loop completely. I have little tolerance for those that tell me they must be paid in coin for every intervention especially the health and well being of the needy. The story you shared about your daughter-in-law just tears the heart out of me when I read and realize so many die and live in absolute misery to fill the pockets of thieves and liars who we are told are the very salt of our civilization. And what is worse those fortunate enough to have the means to pay inflict further pain and suffering on those who don't in callous disregard for the suffering others as if it were a virtue.

 

[ironsides]

There is no reason why anyone cannot get Antibiotics if prescribed, there are many supermarket pharmacies as well as other smaller pharmacies in the U.S. that will give anyone with a prescription the Antibiotics they need free. Not all, but the major ones.

Publix Supermarkets (Pharmacy Dept, offers Free Antibiotics)
Meijer - Free Antibiotics
Stop & Shop Free
Kroger Free

 

[Polygong]

SirJoseph

No doubt you would say the same thing if a very liberal American extolled the virtues of Canadian medicare and the evils of the American system.

Or is there a double-standard on skepticism dependent upon ideology?

I do not know if the OP is correct. However, one would look pretty silly if one dismissed it out of hand because of ideology and it turned out to be true.

You may have a point, but many Canadians, myself included, have no problem pointing out that America's number one Canuck-boot-licker, Michael Moore, is completely full of crap.

Add to that, what if instead of this thread somebody else started a thread calling diabetics in America and other countries around the world a bunch of parasites for having enjoyed the benefits of insulin, a Canadian R&D accomplishment, for nearly a century? How would an American react to such a claim?

 

[bluedog]

Quote:
"So, let’s bring this back to our good natured friends to the North (good natured barring hockey when they’ll kill you as soon as look at you[3]). They have socialized medicine and they bargain as the only Canadian buyer for drugs, paying well below normal costs."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This psuedo intelligent man has the gall to call Canadians Parasites! They are referred to as such because they are smart enough to be a single buyer representing a country!

These drug conglomerates are selfish enough NOT to charge higher fees to spread their cost of development- for fear of losing massive business. The companies could also could charge overseas clients more. Spread the cost of doing business!
Why does the US government through Medicaid/Medicare and the American Insurance Corporation have to pay the large percent of those "developments"? We are in massive debt to help support drug companies that refuse to spread their costs evenly...or better yet, in OUR favor!

Perhaps these companies will sooner rather than later move their headquarters overseas, as have all the other major manufacturers. Maybe Canada could offer their incentive plan?

Here is a unique resolution, thought through by many already I assure you:
Have Obama draw up a national health plan then buy in bulk for OUR own Country. We could thus demand the lower cost to give them our needed distribution. We could ensure success if we could join with the private Insurance Companies to demand a "lot" price for ALL American Distributorship.

Oh yeah, I think some of them own the drug companies stock! It is all self perpetuating...

Bottomline: We in the USa should never have allowed the drug companies to recoup their developmental cost unevenly as to the total sales.

Silly.:fish: