Klinton Outlines Legislative Priorities

[Predicto]

Sure. You're right. But you're the one calling their prices "outrageous" and what-not. My only point is that they have a right to charge whatever they want, because they own it. They paid for its development at great risk. As an economy in general, we WANT people and businesses out there taking risks, innovating and inventing the tools of the future. This gets back to things not seen....

Sure, we can look at the prices here and abroad and call them outrageous and exploitative, regulate the crap out of them, and it's easy because it's right in our face. People are easily influenced by what they see. However, what we don't see is the effect such action would have on innovation and development. As an educated man, I'd hope you'd see the wisdom in this.

All this is true, in the abstract. The problem is that a patented lifesaving drug is not a normal product subject to normal economic laws because the demand for not dying is infinite and because the insurance company is doing the negotiating but YOU are the one doing the living or dying.

If you make IPods, you can try to charge a thousand bucks for your IPod. You wont sell very many because people will stick with their old Walkmen rather than pay that price.

If you make the only truly effective anti-stroke blood clot medicine, how do I negotiate with you? I'll pay anything I have to stay alive. Anything. So my demand is basically infinite.

I don't pretend to understand all of the economic nuances of the pharmaceutical industry, but I studied enough economics to know that traditional rules of supply/demand negotiation do not apply the same way when the product is unique, patented, and where an individual's need for that product is infinite.

Add in the fact that one of the parties in the negotiation is not even doing the negotiation for himself (his insurance company is making the decisions and has very different priorities than does an individual patient) and the picture gets even more skewed.

That is why I do not think it is possible for health care provision to be a purely private economic model. The government pretty much has to play a major role. What that exact role is is a subject open to debate, but to attempt to leave the government out of the situation entirely is simply unrealistic, at least to me.

If I was Bill Gates and could buy unlimited perfect health care in line with my demand for such perfect health care, I am sure I would see it differently.

[Ignatius J.]

Well phrased predicto. I think it's hard to make an argument that the drug companies are evil. It's a fun game to paly when you're trying to get elected, but it is unfair and wrong. I am pleased that most of the liberals on this message board are not calling anyone evil.

But that doesn't mean government has no role. We as a society must decide if it is okay or not for the poor to die of preventable diseases. The scale is tipping towards the side which says no, and the only way for that to happen is for the government to step in.

[JohnLockesGhost]

JLG, this only shows that importing Canadian drugs violates US patent laws, which I think everyone should already know. It would probably be an easy lawsuit for the pharmaceutical companies, but I don't think the internet pharmacies are big enough yet to warrant the legal expenses (and the bad PR).

You made the claim that Canada was threatening to take away patents to negotiate lower prices - that is a much more serious claim, and one that would probably violate the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which Canada has signed.

I would be willing to believe that there is a lot of monopolistic behavior going on in the negotiation of drug prices, but you're going to need to produce some real evidence if you're going to claim extortion in the Canadian patent system.

I agree with these sites:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2004/opd_04-03-04sp.html

The Canadian government has promised to retaliate if U.S. companies refuse to sell drugs to Canada by allowing generic companies to steal American patents and reproduce the drugs for a lower price.

By threatening to violate U.S. patents, the Canadian government routinely blackmails American companies into selling to Canada at price-controlled below-market rates. This is not a matter of free-market economics; it's a matter of theft - plain and simple.

http://www.aims.ca/pharmaceuticals.asp?typeID=3&id=103

[JohnLockesGhost]

I read your link posted later, but it does not state what you said previously, that the Canadian government was extorting from the drug companies by threatening to violate the patents of American drug companies. According to the link, internet pharmacies already violate the patent, but there is nothing about the Canadian government. They may be purchasing the drugs from Asia and importing them for all we know, and the pharmaceutical companies have not gone after them. . .yet.

But it still does not address the issue of the Canadian government threatening to extort money from big Pharma in the US, which is an entirely different argument all together.

Yeah, I know this is easy to disbelieve, but it's a theory I've developed over a few years now of reading and observations. I consider myself an astute observer of politics and economics, and after pondering the questions of pharmaceuticals for quite a while, this is my conclusion. Drug companies are being forced to sell their products for less with the guarantee of their patent rights. The Cipro incident demonstrated well enough for me the willingness of the Canadian government to violate patents.

[chomerics]

I agree with these sites:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2004/opd_04-03-04sp.html

The Canadian government has promised to retaliate if U.S. companies refuse to sell drugs to Canada by allowing generic companies to steal American patents and reproduce the drugs for a lower price.

By threatening to violate U.S. patents, the Canadian government routinely blackmails American companies into selling to Canada at price-controlled below-market rates. This is not a matter of free-market economics; it's a matter of theft - plain and simple.

http://www.aims.ca/pharmaceuticals.asp?typeID=3&id=103

I read both of them, and the first one is an op-ed from the Washington Times, I hardly consider it credible. . .Especially seeing how they are aligned with the right, and the pharmaceutical companies. I would not put it past them to outright lie to make a position.

As for the second link, it doesn't really address the issue either, only on re-selling back to the US. . .

If the U.S. Congress introduces Canadian-style price controls and allows re-importation of Canadian drugs whose prices do not reflect the research effort required to keep the flow of badly needed new drugs, it may mean lower prices for already discovered drugs in the short term.

I think you can replace the word "may" with "will", because it is definitely going to lower the cost to the consumer. Also, it does not mean that the prices won;t reflect the incurred costs of the drug, the will. They just can't charge Americans outrageous prices, even after they made their money back on the drug. I also believe their $1billion dollar figure is bogus, i remember it being somewhere towards what you mentioned earlier, $600 million to bring drugs to market.

I also think their second statement. . .

But in the long term the result will be fewer new drugs, prolonged pain and many preventable deaths.

Is a stretch to say the least. There are a LOT of things governments can do to stimulate R&D money, and to help reduce the costs of research, the article looks at none of the solutions, only states definitively that more people will die. I do not believe that for a minute.

It is nothing more then scare tactics which is most likely paid for by big pharma to dupe people into believing that the worst will happen, while the most likely scenario (drugs will be cheaper for the consumer) will not happen. And they do have a lot of money riding on the case, so they will invest in studies like this. it is one of the problems I have with some think tanks, instead of actually coming up with solutions, they distort the situation to portray a single side, when there are many different and possible solutions.

[DjTj]

I agree with these sites:

I generally agree with those sites too, and I think the Canadian government is using its monopsony status to get lower prices. As the second article states, the Canadian government actually can't buy some drugs, which implies that it is drawing a hard-line on price, not a hard-line on intellectual property.

The Canadian government has promised to retaliate if U.S. companies refuse to sell drugs to Canada by allowing generic companies to steal American patents and reproduce the drugs for a lower price.

This statement doesn't make any sense in terms of international patent law. I guess it's saying that the Canadian government will allow generic companies in Canada to make drugs that are only patented in the U.S. There's nothing illegal about that, and actually, and for older patents, this was routinely done - heck, American companies would make generic versions of products that were only patented in Japan. However, after NAFTA, this would be illegal between Canada and the U.S., and the company could definitely sue. After the WTO and the corresponding Patent Cooperation Treaty, this would be illegal between any two countries. This is something that has changed dramatically in the past ten years, and since most patents expire after 20 years anyways, should apply to most drugs on the market today.

With the state of the patent laws today, and the good relationship between the U.S. and Canada, I just find it very hard to believe that the Canadian government would be engaged in this illegal practice.

I think the only culprit here is a single-buyer market, which will always lead to below-market prices. This is a major detriment to a nationalized healthcare system, and they are taking advantage of the fact that they are right next door to the U.S., where prices are likely inflated because of a lack of competition on the buyer's side.

If Canada is truly doing something illegal, it can be sanctioned under the WTO, and its corporations can be hailed into U.S. courts. I haven't seen that happen yet, so I'm not going to develop theories - I'll attribute it to a broken market.

[chomerics]

I generally agree with those sites too, and I think the Canadian government is using its monopsony status to get lower prices. As the second article states, the Canadian government actually can't buy some drugs, which implies that it is drawing a hard-line on price, not a hard-line on intellectual property.

This statement doesn't make any sense in terms of international patent law. I guess it's saying that the Canadian government will allow generic companies in Canada to make drugs that are only patented in the U.S. There's nothing illegal about that, and actually, and for older patents, this was routinely done - heck, American companies would make generic versions of products that were only patented in Japan. However, after NAFTA, this would be illegal between Canada and the U.S., and the company could definitely sue. After the WTO and the corresponding Patent Cooperation Treaty, this would be illegal between any two countries. This is something that has changed dramatically in the past ten years, and since most patents expire after 20 years anyways, should apply to most drugs on the market today.

With the state of the patent laws today, and the good relationship between the U.S. and Canada, I just find it very hard to believe that the Canadian government would be engaged in this illegal practice.

I think the only culprit here is a single-buyer market, which will always lead to below-market prices. This is a major detriment to a nationalized healthcare system, and they are taking advantage of the fact that they are right next door to the U.S., where prices are likely inflated because of a lack of competition on the buyer's side.

If Canada is truly doing something illegal, it can be sanctioned under the WTO, and its corporations can be hailed into U.S. courts. I haven't seen that happen yet, so I'm not going to develop theories - I'll attribute it to a broken market.

Good points, and pretty much my take on the market as well.

[Cdowwe]

Those are not free. Someone has to pay for it, and I think we know who

[redskingluvr]

Truth is the history of the world shows that when beaurocrats decide who there is enough money in the system to give good halth care and expensive procedures to, it isn't long before only beaurocrats get them and the rest of the money mysteriously disappears. An 'unfortunate situation' which they are chronically 'looking into'....welcome to hitlery and walmart care...........

their delusional hopes will only last until terrorists strike on US soil and war starts again.....oh well, it was nice knowing some of you.

If you should die before you wake, I pray the Lord your soul to take......

[redskingluvr]

Silent thunder will never change the power of real thunder.