Re: The Bull*** Parade

From: fresh~horses (fresh~horses_at_despammed.com)
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: 7 Aug 2004 19:05:33 -0700

"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10hakoaj8vqm050@corp.supernews.com>...
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Lost in this is the simple fact that the rising healthcare costs in
> > the U.S. predate the recent war on Irag and current actions against
> > with Al-Qaida. We have been paying for R&D of medical technologies by
> > these for-profit companies by letting these companies thrive on U.S.
> > soil. It seems the Canadians are unabashedly eating the fruit without
> > being willing to contribute to either fertilizing or watering the
> > trees.
>
> Given that most major pharma companies aren't American-owned and that
> the entire rest of the world pays less for meds, it's a funny picture
> that emerges. It shapes up as more political than economic. For some
> reason, the medbiz puts out the line that Americans are doing the
> right thing by paying these high prices but others are somehow
> shirking their responsibilities by not agreeing to pay the same.
> Research is being done in Canada even as we speak. Their med prices
> are considerably lower and, somehow, the pharms are still in business
> there and still competing hard with each other. Can anyone believe
> that they lose money everywhere but the US? Or just break even? Seen
> any annual reports from pharms lately?
>
> The other tired mantra from them is that if we buy meds from Canada,
> there's a safety issue. Does that mean that the pharms take less care
> with Canadian meds? Less what? Sterility? Purity? Care in handling?
> Outdated ingredients? If it's so, why haven't Canadian medical
> professionals spoken out against this condition? Could it be that
> there's no issue? When I was in Toronto a few weeks ago, I raised the
> question with some medbiz folks who laughed. One said, "It's
> commercial propaganda from the large companies, that's all. The meds
> are the same."
>
> Pharms are consistently among the most profitable businesses of any
> kind. Period. They're vast multinationals making unheard of profits.
>
> The other really significant variable is advertising. Nowhere else do
> the pharms do anywhere near as much advertising of prescription drugs
> direct to consumers as happens in the US. Advertising is expensive.
> Very expensive. Adds significantly to the cost of meds. And they're
> still hugely profitable.
>
> Rising healthcare costs in the US are the highest and fastest rising
> costs (with essentially no new variables) in our domestic economy. And
> they happen across the board with all components in the medbiz system.
>
> I paid $105 for an injection for my daughter in a hospital that cost
> $29 in a doctor's office. Or rather, my insurance paid it. I would
> have paid $135 if I had paid it myself. Hospitals charge people who
> pay in cash more than they do if insurance pays for it. They justify
> that by saying that since insurance companies buy more medical care
> for their insureds, they should be given a discount. But they're
> buying it one person at a time, case by case, in fact no different
> than one customer buying medical care for himself. Same or, most
> likely, less paperwork for the individual purchaser. Less
> administrative time. It should be cheaper for the paying customer; not
> more expensive.
>
> The other great reality is that the pharms aren't doing the basic
> research on new meds. It's coming mostly from universities and
> scientific companies not in the pharm business. The pharms buy or,
> more often, just take over the development process after it shows some
> promise for relatively large sales. And that's the only key for them.
> That's why there are many diseases and conditions that will never be
> investigated by the pharms and no meds or treatments developed.
> Markets too small. Not profitable enough.
>
> Some years back, an acquaintance was in sales for a scientific supply
> company. He showed me a couple centrifuges he had in the trunk of his
> car. One was that speckly gray that all the equipment in our college
> labs were. The other was white. I asked what the difference was. He
> said the paint and the price. I looked confused. He said the gray one
> was for a school and the white one was for a hospital. The white one
> was priced twice as high. "Professional equipment," he said. And laughed.
>
> Pastorio

Thank you.

Zee

Loading