Re: The Bull*** Parade

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

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:17:27 -0700

"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10hbr8449249r5b@corp.supernews.com...
> Robert wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> Slow down. I neither said nor implied that the pharms were Canadian,
> nor did I say that Canadian companies were exploiting anyone. Read
> what I wrote.
So they are multinational but not canadian? Where do you think a lot of the
elderly buy their meds in mail order form from? So canadian pharms only sell
to the elderly to help them and not make money off of them.
>
> But, of course, Canadian medbiz people make money from health care
.
It is a mandatory government impossed no choice system that they tax to the
max for and the canadian medbiz people are no different than anywhere else.
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, it's not just market forces that govern pricing. It's a
> combination of political force, social conditions, cultural issues and
> also market conditions. Fixed prices as some governments have them
> aren't market forces. Social and cultural issues will tend to have
> people use their traditional methods for health care, as in Chinese
That's right so it is not just the pharm companies on their own but is
helped in many ways by politicians. You get what you vote for.

> medicine. Market forces are subverted in the US where it's technically
> illegal to import your own meds from other countries. That's the force
> of political control.
subverted? All countries subvert business in one way or another and pharms
are no different. All countries have protective trading policies on all
products.
>
> So you're saying that the US should subsidize the costs of medicine
> for the rest of the world? Even though the pharms are making very high
> profits now?
Not that it should only that it does because of the reasons you cited above.
>
> > 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.
>
> Don't be silly. You're making it into an extreme situation. And you're
> putting words into my mouth. I have said the prices being charged by
> the pharms are higher than they need to be in the US. The reason they
How in the world do you set the price for a new drug in which their is a
patent on? What is your formula in doing that?
How much does it cost to make a music CD disc and why does it cost so much
more? Do you really want government to run a business when the government
can't even run its own corrupt system.
> charge what they do is because they can. No regulation to curb it.
> Regulation to enforce it. The pharms spend a huge amount of money
> lobbying congress to stay out of the whole subject.
That can be said for any product you can think of. The price of a new car is
dependent on it's popularity. The more popular the higher the price. You
people out there see pharm as somehow different from other profit companies
and they are not.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm not saying they should be held to any specific profit level. I'm a
> capitalist, but I do think there needs to be some new regulation and
> the removal of some regulation to really make it a free market situation.

Free market situation like the company contracts given in Iraq?
What's the name of that company led by the Vice president?
The US took bids in that right? No, that is not how business is done. GIve
me a good example where that has happened.
>
> >>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.
>
> Funny thing. I have family in Canada, some involved in medicine. I
> know some others also involved. I know lots more who aren't medfolk.
> They all together don't seem to be anywhere near as worked up about
> their system as most Americans seem to be. They have the choice of
> having the state system or paying for whatever else they'd prefer.

It's either the hurry up and wait system or pay 100% for whatever they need
outside the system. Doctors are not allowed to see private insured patients.
Legislators have trying to ban competiting for profit companies on behalf of
quality. Ever hear that excuse before about the quality of drugs coming from
Canada so now the Canadian politicians are saying the for profit providers
in the US are of poor quality and should not be allowed in.
>
> I get my information about Canadian conditions from Canadians.
I get my infor about the American system from Americans and not canadians
constantly posting here. The canadian press is liberal and you will not hear
one bad thing about the health system there. They sound pretty much like TC
who claim their system is great and constantly give propaganda with examples
like Zee does.
>
> >>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.
>
> Um, they compete with each other. Look at all the parallel medicines
> available from different manufacturers. Look at the statins. They
> compete. There is no exclusivity or collectivity because they're
> multinationals. It just means they operate in many countries.
Compete in which product to take but not in price. The price is the same for
the statins no matter which statin you take so is that competing. Oil
companies compete but you pay the same at any pump.
>
> > They are like oil companies where they all set the same price
> > per country.
>
> Um, oil companies don't all set the same price per country. That's why
> gas and other petrochemical prices are variable, even in small areas.
> It's illegal in most places to do that.
You mean it is illigal for UPEC to set the price per barrel on the open
market?
There's regional differences in the price of gas but is that competition?
Can you drive 200 miles each time you want to pay a lower price?
>
> > 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.
>
> Yep. And these things you cited here are illegal in the US. Price
> fixing is illegal. Dumping is illegal.
That's what happened to the small gas station owners and they were closed
and after they were closed the prices then went up.
So having a discount sale is illegal?
How many small drug pharm companies do you know that can compete with the
large companies?
>
> >>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?
>
> Jeezus. Read what I wrote. I didn't say where anything is produced.
> The reference is to meds sold in Canada versus meds sold in the US.
> The pharms are saying that meds sold in Canada wouldn't be as safe as
> the meds sold in the US.
Those were questions of production and not of where the drug is sold. All
drugs have variable effects within any given individual and some more than
others. It is hard if not impossible to have manufacturing defects detected
by doctors. The only way is to take samples of drugs and have them tested
for concentration. Medications are impacted by genetics, foods, environment
and medical conditions. There would be not need to monitor drug levels in
the blood otherwise.
>
> > 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.
>
> Obviously you don't deal with the FDA or USDA. Pharmaceutical
> manufacturing is a very precise series of processes. They need to keep
> astonishingly detailed records. They need to run very sophisticated
> equipment that deals in milligrams and micrograms. You don't hire
> cheap labor for that. Pharmaceutical companies have no choice but to
> do extremely intensive QC. The law demands it and the law demands that
> regulatory agencies review the records.
You are specifically referring to the FDA a US government agency but as you
mentioned other drugs are manufactured in third world countries with
different laws dealing with production.
If you look at food and what is low carb and counting calories you will see
a big difference in all assays stated on the package and that measured. That
low fat stuff is not low fat.
I don't have any problems with importing drugs from other countries but you
will also see a difference in manufacturing quality. There is a african
version of viagra going around in the internet that is only partially
viagra. The incentive to cutt the drug and weaken it to stretch it out for
profits is not new. Coke dealers do it all the time and with the money
involved with some pharm drugs the profit is too great to avoid that
problem.

>
> The vitamin industry has been given a free pass by calling their
> products "food supplements." My sense is that will change in a few
> years because of the actual and potential harm done by so many of them.
Vitamins are drugs. Some foods are drugs. People can die by eating mushrooms
so just because it's "food" doesn't mean it is harmless.
>
> Food labeling is a confused mess now, with lots of conditions
> undefined. There are new regs coming out in January 05 that are
> ostensibly going to clear up a lot of that. But slick operators will
> still find ways around them.
>
> >>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.
>
> That doesn't affect what I wrote above.
>
> >>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.
>
> No, it isn't. Centrifuge story at the end...
>
> >>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.
>
> See, that's not so clear as you would wish it to be. Is it profit if a
> hospital has money left over from income after all expenses are paid?
> If it's not profit, what is it? They call it "retained earnings." That
> means income not spent.
It doesn't go into the pockets of share holders and all profit must be used
for the hospital and it's operating costs. You are not getting rich working
for a hospital. The revenue generated goes into buying new centrifuges in
which the prices have skyrocketed.
>
> If they don't have money left over, how will they do new projects or
> acquire new equipment? If so, how is that different than what
> businesses do for future investment. Non-profit only means that the
> excess money isn't given to investors as dividends. Investors can be
> paid interest on the money they've invested.
For-profit means not only money directed to investors but they squeeze the
hospital in order to do so. Investors have priority and the hospital comes
in second so the hospital quality will always lose out.
>
> They do make a profit, it's just not called that and it's treated
> differently than for-profit businesses work. But they sure make more
> than they spend.
>
> > 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.
>
> And you're paying whatever they say the going rate is irrespective of
> market forces.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right. Emergency services cost more *if the operation isn't geared to
> deal with emergencies* like a plumber. Hospital ERs are specifically
> designed to deal with emergencies.

As are 24 hour plumming services. Hospital ERs deal with emergencies when
your doctor is not available.
You also require if it is a trauma level I center to have all specialist
including neurosurgeons to be available at all times so you pay those
doctors to have them available. The costs are included.
>
> >>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.
>
> You missed the point. I said that hospitals charge people who pay cash
> more than they charge people with insurance. Different rates.
Give me an example where cash is less over a savings club card.
Go into a hotel off the street with cash and ask how much and then go to
your computer and make a reservation on line and see how much the difference
is. Off the street without resevation is always more.
>
> >>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.
>
> This is a long non sequitur.
You need vision on use in which basic research lacks. It really is kind of
funny when the noble prise is given to basic research for something that has
revolutionized some aspect of medicine in terms of use. When you see the
full circle and look at it's origin the originator had no idea and is always
astonished by what it all meant in the long run. That women who invented the
radio immuno assay technique was given the noble prize and was totally
removed from any aspects of it now looked purplexed about its current use
and the same about PCR. The guy knows more about surfing than PCR at
present.

>
> >>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?
>
> There's no blame here. Statement of fact.
Statement of fact then- University researchers are the ones who come up the
the basic science break throughs in which pharm companies later develop
drugs in the treatment. University researchers are not doing research into
orphan diseases which does not allow the pharm drugs to develop any new
drugs.

>
> > 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.
>
> That was the entire point of the story. That's why I posted it.

I thought the point was to set price controls on centrifuges or to import
some from canada.

>
> Bob
>

Loading