Should be against the law (Page 2): Of course, but some people call that "free enterprise," "supply and demand." I call it greed, which some people say is good. I guess if people...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Of course, but some people call that "free enterprise," "supply and demand." I call it greed, which some people say is good. I guess if people aren't rich, they shouldn't be allowed to live.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

robertjerl wrote:

I will put in one (sorta) for the US Pharma Companies. It may not apply much to Humalog. I use Humalog - mine comes from Kaiser through my health plan from LA Unified School District (retiree) and Medicare Senior Advantage.
Development costs are way up - salaries, production costs etc. But esp development research and certification by FDA(plus periodic re-certification in some cases - change something and it has to be re-certified). Production facilities are regularly inspected, licensed etc. Research and testing for safety, research for new drugs or improvements etc are all expensive.
Here in the US this is especially expensive due to higher wages, costs, regulations etc. When the company sells that drug in another country the price is often controlled with no factoring in of US costs so they raise the price in places (US) where there is no price control. The same goes for drug companies in other countries - make up for low prices elsewhere by changing more in the US.
Do the companies try to max profits? - Yes
Does our government regulation and rules increase costs? - Yes
Does the higher production costs in the US factor in? - Yes
Do they add on some for research and development of new versions or totally new drugs? - Yes

And in many cases those who run the companies pay themselves vastly exaggerated salaries, benefits and perks.

So it is a complicated thing with blame being in more than one place.

Could the prices be a lot less if someone sat everyone down and they co-operated to lower all costs. - Yes
But the chances of that happening are very low. Unless the President or Congress gets behind it and requires it to be done - or else people start getting replaced until they find someone who can carry it out. Esp when you calculate in that the government (FDA and state versions of it) often can only change things by legislation to change laws in some cases and others through the bureaucracy and its regulations (which are far too many, far too large and change (esp getting rid of some) and resisted by the personnel who have their jobs and incomes tied into writing and maintaining those regulations (they have to justify their job, salary and perks).

And a lot of Law Firms make a very nice living off all this stuff, they don't want to see the system changed much either.

I will put in one (sorta) for the US Pharma Compan... (show quote)

And the t***h will set You free!

bedouin Loc: Big Bend area, Texas

" Let them ( the poor) eat cake." - Marie Antoinette-

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

bedouin wrote:

How did he avoid the two-year waiting list?

Is the he you are referring to Rand Paul? If so, he went to a private Canadian clinic.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

HardwareGuy wrote:

At one time, diabetes was a death sentence.The researchers who discovered insulin sold the formulation for something like $5 as a gift for mankind almost a hundred years ago.
Look what's become of their discovery by greedy pharma.

Did you ever stop and think how many failures, the years spent in R&D all of the federal guidelines and trials and money spent on bringing a drug to market? Do you have knowledge of the dollar value that entails?

traderjohn Loc: New York City

jerryc41 wrote:

Of course, but some people call that "free enterprise," "supply and demand." I call it greed, which some people say is good. I guess if people aren't rich, they shouldn't be allowed to live.

That's bull $hit.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Hal81 wrote:

Years ago I used to get my wife's meds from Canada till the pharm dropped a large deposit in DC and put a stop to it.

That's how it works in DC. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. It matters not, if you are Republican or Democrat politician.

Tommy II Loc: Northern Illinois

Huey Driver wrote:

Should be against the law

The American Public has been getting ripped off by pharmaceutical companies for years. You can get exact same drugs from Canada, for a lot less money. In fact many of the “American” drugs you’re overpaying for, are made overseas, by the major manufacturers. People are being conned into believing “Our” drugs are safer because of the FDA. It’s not true. No one would buy cars or electronics from Japan and Korea 30 years ago because of same stupid paranoia. Electronics aren’t even made here anymore, and if you buy an “American” car now, most of the parts are made overseas. My last “American” ( a Chevy) was manufactured in Canada.

cochese

HardwareGuy wrote:

Oh puleeeze, using Cuba and Venezuela as examples of "the evil of all evils" - "socialized medicine" - is ridiculous. Tell this to a Dane, a Norwegian, an Australian and a Canadian who get fine care. Our country? Uh, not so much with its capitalistic medical system unless you happen to have great coverage. Ours is so broken, it will likely never get fixed.

I agree, as long as the big pharma (and a host of other big moneey lobbiests) are allowed free reign to muck about in our government we will never see the fine healthcare that others with social healthcare receive. Yes they pay higher taxes. But in exchange in Denmark for example they vet free healthcare, free public schools and free universities. How exactly can that be a bad thing? I think the USA needs to re-evaluate it's corporate run government model and start being "For The People" as it was originally designed. Start by removing Citizens United and ALL big money and super pac donors!

cochese

robertjerl wrote:

I will put in one (sorta) for the US Pharma Companies. It may not apply much to Humalog. I use Humalog - mine comes from Kaiser through my health plan from LA Unified School District (retiree) and Medicare Senior Advantage.
Development costs are way up - salaries, production costs etc. But esp development research and certification by FDA(plus periodic re-certification in some cases - change something and it has to be re-certified). Production facilities are regularly inspected, licensed etc. Research and testing for safety, research for new drugs or improvements etc are all expensive.
Here in the US this is especially expensive due to higher wages, costs, regulations etc. When the company sells that drug in another country the price is often controlled with no factoring in of US costs so they raise the price in places (US) where there is no price control. The same goes for drug companies in other countries - make up for low prices elsewhere by changing more in the US.
Do the companies try to max profits? - Yes
Does our government regulation and rules increase costs? - Yes
Does the higher production costs in the US factor in? - Yes
Do they add on some for research and development of new versions or totally new drugs? - Yes

And in many cases those who run the companies pay themselves vastly exaggerated salaries, benefits and perks.

So it is a complicated thing with blame being in more than one place.

Could the prices be a lot less if someone sat everyone down and they co-operated to lower all costs. - Yes
But the chances of that happening are very low. Unless the President or Congress gets behind it and requires it to be done - or else people start getting replaced until they find someone who can carry it out. Esp when you calculate in that the government (FDA and state versions of it) often can only change things by legislation to change laws in some cases and others through the bureaucracy and its regulations (which are far too many, far too large and change (esp getting rid of some) and resisted by the personnel who have their jobs and incomes tied into writing and maintaining those regulations (they have to justify their job, salary and perks).

And a lot of Law Firms make a very nice living off all this stuff, they don't want to see the system changed much either.

I will put in one (sorta) for the US Pharma Compan... (show quote)

This line says it all. Start by removing the mega rich ceo's from the mix and suddenly they have their profits AND cheaper healthcare. More formthempeople and less for mega corporations.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

cochese wrote:

I agree, as long as the big pharma (and a host of ... (show quote)

The cost of that "free" healthcare, public schools, and universities is a 60% tax rate - so for every $10.00 you earn $6.00 goes to the government. This may work in a small country with a total population of about 5 million people and a mostly homogenous population.

Its a bad thing when you force people to fork over 60% of their earnings for social engineering.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

traderjohn wrote:

Did you ever stop and think how many failures, the years spent in R&D all of the federal guidelines and trials and money spent on bringing a drug to market? Do you have knowledge of the dollar value that entails?

Yet the drug companies somehow manage to barely stay in business, with their executives making modest salaries. Every company has operating expenses.

HardwareGuy

traderjohn wrote:

Did you ever stop and think how many failures, the years spent in R&D all of the federal guidelines and trials and money spent on bringing a drug to market? Do you have knowledge of the dollar value that entails?

And you ARE aware that the government provides subsidies for this research, correct? It is generally a myth that in the end this research actually "costs" the pharma companies.
In the particular example I gave, the researchers gave away their research for the common good. That would be unheard of today.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

sippyjug104 wrote:

It's all a crazy twisted game that feeds itself in a vicious circle. The only bright side is that the large Pharma's are shareholder corporations so their profits get distributed in share values.

Now, if you want to see what social medicine brings, take a look at Venezuela or Cuba. Free to the public...however there is no medicine available and both are in a state of medical crisis.

Or.... you could look at Canada, France, Great Britain, and any other developed nation in the entire world, where people do not go bankrupt and do not die because they cannot afford to treat their diabetes...

LittleRed

wds0410 wrote:

Is the he you are referring to Rand Paul? If so, he went to a private Canadian clinic.

That is true, he is supposed to be booked for hernia surgery at the Shouldice Clinic in Toronto, Ontario. While this is a Private Clinic any surgeries performed here on a person from Ontario, Canada is fully covered by our government backed medical plan, called OHIP. So, even though it maybe costing Rand $8500 for me the cost would be $0. As for the wait time it totally depends on the seriousness of the situation. The more serious it is, the quicker it is done. There may at times be a wait for some procedures for various reasons but I'd sooner have that than the unbelievable costs that can result with a visit to a medical establishment in the good old USA. At least I know that if the situation was serious I would be looked after promptly ( been there, done that) at basically no cost to myself.

LittleRed (Ron)