Re: The Bull*** Parade

From: Robert (Robert_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 01:09:03 -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.

So you are saying that most are Canadian companies taken advantage of the US
market? I can't believe canadians would be so morally corrupt as to make
money with health care. In all reality it is market forces that comprise how
much profit one can obtain. In mexico most people can't afford meds so the
price for the average med is dirt cheap in comparison. It is better to make
some profit than not at all. This can be offset by the high pricey markets
such as the US. If you are saying that all markets should be held to near
zero profit and you will see companies fold and go into other areas. There
are a lot of profit in drugs right now and so there are a lot of companies
and research. If you get rid of profit then most of these companies will go
else where. There was a boom in hospitals in the early 70's when health care
was skyrocketing with money. As business tightned then hospitals started
folding.
> Research is being done in Canada even as we speak. Their med prices
> are considerably lower and, somehow, the pharms are still in business

Their health care system is out of control especially with drugs right now
as a result of shifting costs so if it were a simple price control on drugs
they would simply lower the price again. They are in trouble as they have
cut back in services in the form of delays in surgery. You can save more
money by closing more surgical centers and increasing the waiting times for
surgery again or decreasing drug costs. People are pissed up there.

> 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?
If they are multinational then how can you say they are competing hard with
each other. They are like oil companies where they all set the same price
per country. So you want to lower costs per drug? The large oil companies
can close a local retail gas station owner by lowering prices and putting
him out of business. Companies dump products to do the same thing.
>
> 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."
You are dealing with multinational companies and what makes you think it is
produced in canada? A company can save a lot of money buy hiring cheap labor
and not doing QC. QC costs money and you can see with the vitamine industry
or even in any food product where the label often does not conform with the
content.
>
> Pharms are consistently among the most profitable businesses of any
> kind. Period. They're vast multinationals making unheard of profits.
You forget to mention that they are a product that have use and meaning in a
health care setting. You hope for the best and prepare for the worse in that
you want to kill as few people as possible and save much lives.
>
> 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.
That's true and I really think that is a bad way to go.

>
> 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.
Not just the US as in any product that is new it will cost more. Look at eye
surgery laser machines out there coming out like new computers every few
years and more expensive. It is not just drugs.
>
> 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

It is shifting costs of hospital expenses and not really directly related to
the price of the actual injection. I paid $7.50 for a coke and a hotdog in a
movie theatre. Most hospitals are non-profit so they are not making a profit
off of you. You are paying for those who don't have insurance and for
staffing costs at the hospital and for malpractice insurance and anything
else the hospital might need. You should go to your doctors office instead
of a hospital but if you were to need a plummer at 4 in the morning I bet
you will pay more than the usual work day hours plumming job.

> 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

Not just hospitals dude. Last time I was in to the dentist I have a copay
and sometimes the insurance is billed x amount and I recieve an additonal y
I need to pay because the insurance did not pay 100 percent on the bill.

> 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.

You make it sound as though it's not big deal on their part. How many nerdy
researchers do you know who are able to run a large pharm company? Most
researchers would quite content on studying the sex live of osyters for 20
years than deal with business. The person who developed PCR is a hippy type
with bad hair days and lives a very modest life without a patent on
anything. He is basicly broke but happy. He had no desire on even developing
fully his ideas.
The original purpose of viagra was to be for blood pressure control and
that's what the nerds invented it for. Get it in pharm clinical studies and
they see people sporting wood. They take it the urologists and say " Hey
Fred look at my wood".
Basic research is nothing with out the vision of application. Both are
original in thinking and not just the abstract thought.

> 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.

So why are you blaming the pharms for that after you just said that most
basic research is done in the U's?
They did pass the orphane disease act as an incentive for research and drug
development in that area.
>
> 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.

Didn't you just ask why the hospital charges more? You were just passed on
the cost of that centrifudge.
>
> Pastorio
>