Price of Medication here why?

[SheHateMe]

Just be happy we havent been banned from buying our scripts from Canada yet.

 

[woolfe9998]

Holy fail.

The FDA is free market?

Patents are free market?

A "free market" is relative. No, I didn't mean it in the sense of free market absolutism the way libertarians do.

 

[woolfe9998]

There are other ways to develop new drugs. One idea out there is to create a world fund which would draw researchers from around the world and bypass the IP and other industry considerations. The Obama administration worked to kill that though. Still, it's a possibility. CEOs and directors don't make meds.

I happen to think this is a good idea. However, such a system funds research directly using tax payer dollars. You think American conservatives are going to stand for that? Obama "killing it" or not, it would be filibustered in a heartbeat.

 

[woolfe9998]

When you put into effect price controls, the supply is limited to the point of shortages. Its not $45 dollars, its $45 dollars and a 6month wait to see the doctor to get the script.

6 months just to get in to see a doctor? You're making that up or cherry picking information.

The fact is, overall healthcare outcomes are similar as between the US and Canada. The difference being they pay half of what we do and everyone there has access. Their system is just better than ours by any reasonable measure. There are of course some trade-offs in individual circumstances, but it's impossible to compare both systems in aggregate and not conclude that their system is superior.

 

[Anarchist420]

Oh, really? $614.27 is the cheapest price for 90 x 20 mg tablets of brand name Lipitor: http://www.goodrx.com/lipitor#/?filt....0&qty-custom= $27.45 is the cheapest price for 90 x 20 mg tablets of atorvastatin (generic Lipitor): http://www.goodrx.com/lipitor#/?filt....0&qty-custom=

You know that i meant price monopoly. God damn.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I happen to think this is a good idea. However, such a system funds research directly using tax payer dollars. You think American conservatives are going to stand for that? Obama "killing it" or not, it would be filibustered in a heartbeat.

If you recall the Bush administration was amenable to working with the group which came up with this idea for important medications for use in poor nations where AIDS and other diseases run rampant. The current administration called it "absurd" and then acted to tank it. That would be at odds with the commonly perceived notion that one "team" is beneficent and the other Scrooge. It depends on the issue and circumstance.

Regardless, this would be an international issue of research, grant money provided by other nations as well as the US.

I fully expect opposition, mainly because it's unfamiliar and there's no financial reward for either the Democrats or Republican war chests, but I do know that nothing is achieved by not trying. Suppression of ideas to leave mediocrity as the gold standard is something which I cannot endorse. That is a major fault with our system. "Don't try something which can work if it is different". The goal ought to be for superior outcome with originality of thought emphasized. Lay it before the public and make the politicians contort themselves exposing them what they are, and that is the problem itself.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I happen to think this is a good idea. However, such a system funds research directly using tax payer dollars. You think American conservatives are going to stand for that? Obama "killing it" or not, it would be filibustered in a heartbeat.

The truth is tax payers already fund substantial amounts of drug R&D through NIH funding.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The truth is tax payers already fund substantial amounts of drug R&D through NIH funding.

There's a thread in the "discussion" forum about what I referenced. The idea would be to create an entity which was neither an extension of government nor commerce. It would exist for the sole purpose of research, development and production of medications free from bureaucratic overreach and manipulation for profit.

That's the hard part, to get people to keep their hands off "because they know better".

 

[Matt1970]

Yep, let's just buy all our crap from other countries because it's cheaper and then bitch about outsourcing. This thread is proof positive of what I have been saying all along. Pharmaceuticals is just one more piece of the puzzle. Ya gotta love it.

 

[allisolm]

Many common medications are free or nearly so. Lisinopril (high blood pressure), metformin (diabetes) and 6 different antibiotics are free at Publix pharmacies. Walmart has hundreds of medications that are $4 per month or $10 for 3 months as does Sam's Club. Here. Same with Winn-Dixie here and many others, I'm sure.

 

[BoberFett]

A "free market" is relative. No, I didn't mean it in the sense of free market absolutism the way libertarians do.

That being the case, how do you claim that drugs are a free market? They're very tightly controlled by government, the only area government chooses not to control is price. We have the worst possible model, with government controlling the supply without controlling the price. That only serves corporations and politicians who accept graft.

Confused people need to stop blaming the free market where no free market exists.

 

[Slammy1]

In my experience drug approvals and regulations are more lax in Canadia. They're moving towards FDA level regulation, but the US makes companies jump through crazy hoops. For method validations, which is my background, Canadia's requirements for drug substances (APIs) are comparable to what the US requires for homeopathic medicines. This could easily be related to product liability issues.

Mexican drug products can be anything. A friend working for the FDA was testing some hard core pharmaceutical from there and it was acetaminophen.

 

[Linux23]

Just like a hospital visit costs 10's of thousands of dollars. I think it cost like $50K to have my daughter delivered.

 

[Ancalagon44]

So the "free market" is responsible for American's paying much more for health insurance? Right....

Its not the free market, its the lack of a free market. Its the regulatory capture going on - big pharma, like all big corporations, does not like playing by the rules, so it hires lobbyists to get senators to rewrite the rules in its favour.

Want to know how much I paid for health insurance when I lived in the UK? 0 pounds. Want to know how much I pay for decent private health insurance in South Africa? About $130 US or so. That covers hospital visits, doctor visits, medication, etc etc.

I think the most expensive plan would cost me $400 or so.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yeah, but that will never happen here. Right?

What is the wait time for the 40 million without insurance or for those with insurance that get denied? 26 weeks is better than never...

 

[shadow9d9]

So the "free market" is responsible for American's paying much more for health insurance? Right....

Its not the free market, its the lack of a free market. Its the regulatory capture going on - big pharma, like all big corporations, does not like playing by the rules, so it hires lobbyists to get senators to rewrite the rules in its favour.

Want to know how much I paid for health insurance when I lived in the UK? 0 pounds. Want to know how much I pay for decent private health insurance in South Africa? About $130 US or so. That covers hospital visits, doctor visits, medication, etc etc.

I think the most expensive plan would cost me $400 or so.

The free market is a fantasy, but we are as close as it gets in the 1st world. Greed rules in the US. You can't let corporations do whatever they want when it comes to necessities.

 

[AViking]

I pay $0 for my healthcare and if I use it I have a yearly cap of a bit over $100.

The US allows corporations to charge insane prices and this makes it unaffordable for many and leads to incredible healthcare costs that we now pay 17% of our gdp to cover.

Companies like Pfizer are seeing 400% increases in their profits and are complaining about it. They are upset that their patents have run out and generics are hurting their bottom line.

Yet take the profits of Pfizer alone. Don't get me wrong, I believe that a corporation should make money, but the $15,000,000,000 that they made is quite a bit.

Merck & Co? They make about $6,000,000,000

I'm sure these profits are in the best interests of their stockholders. No doubt. They are not in the best interest of the country or its people though.

 

[HumblePie]

Amazing what a few hundred million dollars a year can buy. Isn't it?

You might also want to check to see what the lawyer's lobby gives as well...

You want more economical drugs? How much are you spending on lobbyists?

Uno

Got to love legalized bribery... er lobbying!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Why Are Medications Cheaper in Canada?

http://drugs.about.com/od/faqsaboutyourdrugs/f/Canada_cheap.htm

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Too bad you don't have the ability to refute the info.

 

[nickbits]

Let's see how long it takes someone without health care to get that replacement - oh wait it's never. 26 weeks subsidized by the government, or pay $1200 a month to get it in 2 weeks - I'll take the 26 week public healthcare option any day of the week.

If you're rich in the US, the healthcare is great; for everybody else is sucks.

Guess I'm rich? Ha

Having lived under both systems, I'll take the US one, thanks.

If you're healthy in Canada, the health care is great; for anything not life threatening, it sucks.

 

[BoberFett]

The free market is a fantasy, but we are as close as it gets in the 1st world. Greed rules in the US. You can't let corporations do whatever they want when it comes to necessities.

It has yet to be shown how the US has anything at all close to a free market for health care.

 

[Darwin333]

Because the prices the drug companies can charge wholesale are controlled by their state healthcare system. In the US pharmaceuticals are in a free market with no price controls.

That is only half of it. The other half is that we are "subsidizing" a good portion of the worlds pharma R&D. If it costs $100 to make (including R&D and profit) the inhaler and some country says "we'll give you $50 or we will rip off your patent", $50 is obviously better than $0. However, the rest has to be made up somewhere and that is usually in the good ole USA.

 

[shortylickens]

Quite the contrary as patents are price controls.

No thats part of the cost of production, but it doesnt affect the supply/demand curve any more than a normal mode.

 

[Ancalagon44]

That is only half of it. The other half is that we are "subsidizing" a good portion of the worlds pharma R&D. If it costs $100 to make (including R&D and profit) the inhaler and some country says "we'll give you $50 or we will rip off your patent", $50 is obviously better than $0. However, the rest has to be made up somewhere and that is usually in the good ole USA.

If that were true, then corporations would not be seeing massive profits. I mean, if what you say is true, then they ONLY make a profit in the US, and in fact make a loss elsewhere. If they only made a small profit in elsewhere, they would not bother to subsisize the rest of the world, correct?

So tell me why Pfizer's 2012 net income was $14 billion? That does not sound like a struggling corporation to me - one having to move money around to make a profit.