The united states Economy

[Mercutio]

That every Canadian can actually see a doctor when he or she is sick?

 

[flagreen]

That every Canadian can actually see a doctor when he or she is sick?

Isn't it more the case that they are able to see a doctor when they are allowed to? And not necessarily when they feel they need to, or when they want to? Is this perhaps why the out of pocket expenses are slightly higher than ours rather than lower as one might expect them to be with a national health program?

How many public hospitals here in the U.S. will refuse emergency room treatment to someone who cannot afford to pay?

 

[its.fubar]

If you're in Euroland, why do you care so much about our politics?

Because what has happened in the united states tends to influence Europe unfortunately."ever heard of the statement" whenever the united states sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Please excuse the pun but it seems to be true And believe me when I say we do not need your republican politics here, democratic yes republican no.

 

[its.fubar]

That every Canadian can actually see a doctor when he or she is sick?

Isn't it more the case that they are able to see a doctor when they are allowed to? And not necessarily when they feel they need to, or when they want to? Is this perhaps why the out of pocket expenses are slightly higher than ours rather than lower as one might expect them to be with a national health program?

How many public hospitals here in the U.S. will refuse emergency room treatment to someone who cannot afford to pay?

Let us say that you will need a by pass operation, will all public hospitals perform this operation and then provide you with the necessary medicine afterwards As long as you might need it.

 

[Mercutio]

There is of course the issue of finding a public hospital. In all of Chicago, there is only one, Cook County General (the basis for the medical drama show whose name escapes me). Three million people, and only one that will take in anybody.

A couple years ago, a gang member was shot and lay bleeding 12 feet outside the emergency entrance to Ravenswood (?) Hospital in Chicago. EMTs had to step over the poor bastard to bring in gurneys with insured, paying patients. A couple of security guards finally brought him in, but he was refused care. The guy bled to death.

Having public hospitals would help, but what do we do for the folks who can't afford care for a chronic condition, like diabetes or heart disease?

 

[it's-fubar]

If you're in Euroland, why do you care so much about our politics?

Because what has happened in the united states tends to influence Europe unfortunately."ever heard of the statement" whenever the united states sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Please excuse the pun but it seems to be true And believe me when I say we do not need your republican politics here, democratic yes republican no.

You see firends here is proof that this chap is the imposter. The people of scandinavia are dying for a republican party like you Americans have. We are sick of paying these ridiculous tax rates that keep us in slavery to the government. People who need life saving operations must wait and wait and wait. Many of them die while waiting! What good does a health care system that is free do you if you die waitng to get treatment!

We would gladly except a Buffoon like Bush to lead us if he can get this monkey off our backs!

Pay no attention to this poser. He is still waiting for anti-phsycotics RX to be filled.

 

[flagreen]

There is of course the issue of finding a public hospital. In all of Chicago, there is only one, Cook County General (the basis for the medical drama show whose name escapes me). Three million people, and only one that will take in anybody.

A couple years ago, a gang member was shot and lay bleeding 12 feet outside the emergency entrance to Ravenswood (?) Hospital in Chicago. EMTs had to step over the poor bastard to bring in gurneys with insured, paying patients. A couple of security guards finally brought him in, but he was refused care. The guy bled to death.

Having public hospitals would help, but what do we do for the folks who can't afford care for a chronic condition, like diabetes or heart disease?

Actually I did some looking around as to what Chicago had available for the poor in the way of health care. Surprisingly there are several hospitals who will treat anyone in need of attention. Here are a few of them;

http://www.shrinershq.org/shc/chicago/

http://www.sinai.org/publications_newsletters/2003_annual_report/home.html

http://www.steliz.org/

More info on what is available can be found here -

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/

 

[Mercutio]

You specified public hospitals.

It's somewhat off the topic. The fact is, those place will treat you. They'll also write you a large bill on your way out the door. The goal of something like Universal Coverage would be to keep medical costs within the bounds of rationality.

 

[mubs]

Going back to the economy:

For being a dismal failure and presiding over the downslide of the company he headed, and for laying off 60,000 employees, here's what Christopher Galvin gets for a golden handshake:

* vesting of all stock options
For the next two years, for each year:
* $1.4 million
* Average of his annual bonuses for the years 2001-2003
(The above two estimated to be worth $29 million)
* Office
* Secretary
* company car
* use of company aircraft

Galvin is the departing chairman of Motorola. Of course, this pales in comparison to Michael Ovitz's golden handshake; for failing at Disney over a period of 1 year, he got $90 million.

I wish golden handshake was like a golden shower; the recipient stands at a lower level, makes a cup with his/her hands and holds it up, and the employees, standing at a higher level, get to pee in it.

 

[jtr1962]

A couple years ago, a gang member was shot and lay bleeding 12 feet outside the emergency entrance to Ravenswood (?) Hospital in Chicago. EMTs had to step over the poor bastard to bring in gurneys with insured, paying patients. A couple of security guards finally brought him in, but he was refused care. The guy bled to death.

This isn't something I think the majority of the public would be overly sympathetic to, especially given that these gang members call innocent bystanders who happen to get in the way of their bullets "mushrooms". As far as I'm concerned the public saved the cost of a trial and incarceration here, assuming the guy could even have been saved. This also illustrates vividly the point I'm trying to make-if you lead the kind of lifestyle that regularly gets you in a state that you require medical care, why should the public pick up the tab?

Having public hospitals would help, but what do we do for the folks who can't afford care for a chronic condition, like diabetes or heart disease?

Did you know that these two conditions are usually caused by being overweight, and that being overweight is also a lifestyle choice? While in principle I could support some sort of public health insurance for those who require hospitalization through no fault of their own(i.e. a car runs onto the sidewalk and hits them, they get cancer, they have diabetes but aren't overweight), if we cover everybody, including those who have no interest in leading a healthy lifestyle, sooner or later this will drag down our entire civilization. Certain types of care, like universal vaccinations, lake lots of sense and cost very little. I question whether it's worthwhile taking care of a 400-pound person who won't stop getting Bic Macs or a drug addict. The problem with anything like you're proposing is that sooner or later everything under the sun is covered as politicians try to get votes by doing so. For example, I'm sure the AARP will step in and try to get coverage for something as medically unnecessary as Viagra. $10 of public money can be far better spent on other more sensible things than giving an old person a stiffy, yet don't be surprised if something as frivolous as this is covered.

In the final analysis the problem with universal health care is that you either end up covering nearly everything, and going bankrupt, or you ration care and the poor are put on a waiting list for even very basic coverage. I don't see that this is a whole lot better than what we have now, and I also feel private insurance has driven up the cost of medical care and drugs to levels not affordable out of pocket for most people. This is one reason drug prices are less up north-our insurance companies routinely pay ridiculous prices for drugs while the Canadian health care system won't. What we probably need instead of universal coverage is a system of price controls on both drugs and medical care so those who aren't insured might actually be able to afford medical care without going bankrupt. Another good idea would be to eliminate medically unnecessary procedures which doctors now perform just to cover their behinds in case they're sued. As I said earlier, get the lawyers out of medicine. While a small minority of malpractice suits are legitimate, most are frivolous. They drive up the cost of medicine unnecessarily. I would personally like to see doctors shielded from lawsuits unless they are performing their duties in a deliberately neglectful manner. Fact is sometimes patients die even with the best of care, and nobody is really at fault.

N.B. Regarding the so-called safety net we all pay taxes for, several years ago my brother-in-law had cancer(which thankfully hasn't resurfaced). He was out of work quite some time, the bills piled up, and my sister tried to get some help form the state. Basically, they told her to sell her car, sell her furniture, and some other nonsense. The person she spoke to also told her off the record that had she been black, she probably would have gotten help(the reason being that when in doubt blacks get the help more easily to avoid discrimination lawsuits). Needless to say, I was very pissed off about this. My sister worked her whole adult life, paid taxes, never asked for anything until that time. The point of this is to illustrate why me and many others here aren't thrilled with the types of programs you espouse. We pay taxes on the theory that we'll receive help if we need it. Sadly, this usually isn't the case. Twelve years ago I had to pay back some of my unemployment insurance(the only time I ever collected anything from the government) because someone reported I was doing work for my ex-boss. The amount I had to pay back was more than I earned because they counted each day on my invoice as "one day worked" even if I only billed for $40. I tend to think they should welcome part-time work, not penalize it to the point I would have been ahead doing nothing.

 

[mubs]

Everything I know says that for the majority, diabetes and heart disease is inherited. They can be brought on much sooner, aggravated, etc. by the wrong lifestyle. By the same token, leading the right lifestyle can delay onset and minimize the problem.

One swallow does not a summer make, but I'll still give you an example. My brother-in-law is an internist + haematologist/oncologist (dual specialty). He has a strong family history of diabetes, and was and is very careful with his diet, was and is pretty lean, has always and continues to exercises everyday. His older brother, who was not as careful, got diabetes in his forties. My brother-in-law got it in his fifties. I can relate many such examples.

 

[CougTek]

if we cover everybody, including those who have no interest in leading a healthy lifestyle, sooner or later this will drag down our entire civilization.

It hasn't dragged down ours.

 

[Fushigi]

1. Being overweight is not necessarily a lifestyle choice. There are thyroid conditions that will cause a person to not be able to lose weight. There may be other conditions as well. My sister was working out 90 minutes a day every single day (weights, machines, jogging) and couldn't lose a pound despite a vegetarion lifestyle.

2. Viagra is prescribed as a followup treatment after certain types of prostate surgery as an aid in proper urination. With assistance from that little pill, my dad claims he can piss the bark off a tree.

Yes, lifestyle influences your medical condition. But you can't make sweeping generalizations and summary judgements about how someone got to be in the condition they're in without a thorough knowledge of the individual's background.

What I'd like to know is just why medical costs (and higher education costs for that matter) outstrip rates of inflation by so much. Corporate greed? Lawsuits?

 

[blakerwry]

maybe the solution is price fixing that keeps mdeical care to a reasonable level vs a healthcare system doomed from the start... make private companies figure out how to operate with a fixed amount of income.

 

[jtr1962]

1. Being overweight is not necessarily a lifestyle choice. There are thyroid conditions that will cause a person to not be able to lose weight. There may be other conditions as well. My sister was working out 90 minutes a day every single day (weights, machines, jogging) and couldn't lose a pound despite a vegetarion lifestyle.

Yes, there are conditions that can cause a person to be chronically overweight but these are a minority. Being slightly overweight is not a big cause for concern, but being obese, and sometimes twice your proper weight, is. This is what causes me concern. People are heavier than ever, and doctors are increasingly reluctant to tell a person that their condition can be mitigated or cured by a lifestyle change. Sure, there are plenty of illnesses that have nothing to do with lifestyle, but to some extent heart disease, stroke, and diabetes are far more likely if a person is overweight, sedentary, and smokes. Sure, you can be fat and relatively healthy, but such cases are the exception, not the rule.

Regarding Viagra and your father, that sounds like a medically necessary use. I was refering to cases where a senior citizen just wants to have sexual relations. That is more a quality of life issue than a medical necessity.

What I'd like to know is just why medical costs (and higher education costs for that matter) outstrip rates of inflation by so much. Corporate greed? Lawsuits?

I'd like an answer to that one myself, and this is one of the primary reasons I remain opposed to any national health care plan as it will eat up an increasing percentage of GNP if current trends continue. A couple of my own observations:

1)The numbers of obese people are increasing at an alarming rate. Obesity is the root cause of all sorts of other problems including but not limited to diabetes, heart disease, stroke, joint problems, skin rashes, possibly some types of cancer, etc. Current trends use expensive drugs to mask some of the symptoms of obesity instead of just getting at the root cause. Doubtless doctors fear upsetting a patient by telling them they're too fat because the patient may go elsewhere, or may sue them for emotional trauma.

2)Drug companies have been allowed to advertise in the last few years. As a result, patients ask their doctor to prescribe drugs they see advertised. Doctors frequently go along with this to avoid confrontation, even if no medical reason exists. As a result, many people are taking pills when they don't need them, or when a lifestyle change would cure the problem instead of a pill masking it. Most troubling is the trend of prescribing psychoactive drugs like Ritalin for young children when in most cases the reason is because teachers and parents simply can't cope with healthy, active, normal children. Doubtless there will be huge health effects later on from years of kidneys filtering this junk out of their system.

3)Preventative medicine is no longer stressed as there is no money in keeping a patient healthy.

4)The population is aging. A good portion of our medical expenses are during the last year of a person's life, often in chronic care facilities. I question whether prolonging life by artificial means at any cost is worthwhile, especially when the quality of such life is frequently low.

5)Malpractice suits do eat up a large portion of the health care budget while doing little to improve the quality of medicine. Recently, some doctors in New Jersey were thinking of quitting due to the high cost of malpractice insurance.

6)Medical mistakes are made in increasingly large numbers. Due to a chronic shortage of medical personnel doctors and nurses frequently work 80 hours per week or more. When fatigued, it is easy for a momentary lapse in judgement to end up costing a patient their life. These mistakes enact a huge toll on the health care system in terms of malpractice suits.

7)Medicaid expenses are growing even faster than general medical expenses for the simple reason that the user doesn't pay. There is an almost infinite demand for something that is free, and as a result people go to a doctor or even an emergency room for a knee scrape.

8)Ever increasing air and water pollution are responsible for growing numbers of cancers.

Those are the reasons as I see it, but a final reason might be that as a general rule, our way of life is poisonous, and not just in the literal sense. Diets are unhealthy in the extreme(what sane parent would let their children eat junk like Lunchables yet many do?). Most people live rushed, stressed filled lives in artificial environments. Indeed, many people spend more time in their automobile than they do anywhere else. Commuting to work is frequently very stressful, and most jobs are either stressful, boring, or both. Few people these days have a clue as to how to live healthy, fulfilling lives. It's been proven that stress kills, and doing what "you're supposed to do" instead of what you want to do will kill you in time. In the final analysis, I would say the biggest problem with our way of life is that we are a slave to things, always wanting more at the expense of extra hours working instead of spent at leisure. In my opinion this is not a good thing.

 

[jtr1962]

Everything I know says that for the majority, diabetes and heart disease is inherited. They can be brought on much sooner, aggravated, etc. by the wrong lifestyle. By the same token, leading the right lifestyle can delay onset and minimize the problem.

My point is that obesity can cause heart disease and diabetes to occur in people for whom there is no family history at all. Same with asthma, which is appearing in record numbers thanks to air pollution. Environment combined with lifestyle has a huge effect on whether a person gets sick or not. If we had clean air and water, and everyone exercised regulary as well as kept a proper weight I tend to think reaching 100 in good health would be the norm, and you would have many living ten, even twenty years past that. This is with no breakthroughs at all.

 

[its.fubar]

jtr1962 I believe the problem is the influence of lobbyists thought one way or another being able to coerce these politicians into their way of thinking e.g where do you think these politicians get there money for reelection,I have no idea how many there are exactly but I would make a guess at about 50 to 1 using this type of influence,here is another example the FDA is trying to make it illegal for people to getting help in purchasing drugs in Canada, who do you think has convinced the FDA into this course of action.

 

[blakerwry]

there is no such thing as an honest politition

 

[Howell]

People on food stamps can only buy certain products - not everything is free.

Not exactly true although I know what you meant. What I enjoy seeing (ha ha) in the supermarket line is paying for the bread and milk with food stamps and paying for the Doritos, beer and cigarettes with cash. I just about pee my myself when they throw the groceries into the back of a 5-year old Lexus.

 

[Howell]

Someone I know came to the US for her surgery because she felt the waiting list in Canada was too long. Fortunately her parents could afford it.

She needed to have a heart-valve fixed. She would have died on the waiting list.

 

[Howell]

Granted, I'm not sure the federal government still specifically funds that program, ...

They do. The total amount of rent the landlord receives can be about 20% higher than market.

 

[Howell]

Galvin is the departing chairman of Motorola. Of course, this pales in comparison to Michael Ovitz's golden handshake; for failing at Disney over a period of 1 year, he got $90 million.

I think the stock-holders have forgotten what it means to hold stock. On a related note, the company I work for went after the departing CEO to get a finder or four of that handshake back, he did so badly.

 

[jtr1962]

What I enjoy seeing (ha ha) in the supermarket line is paying for the bread and milk with food stamps and paying for the Doritos, beer and cigarettes with cash. I just about pee my myself when they throw the groceries into the back of a 5-year old Lexus.

If you think that's bad, my brother used to work in a pharmacy. It wasn't uncommon for him to see someone get a prescription paid for by Medicaid, and then get into a late model Cadillac or Lincoln. By and large the people he saw doing this were Russian Jews fresh off the boat(whom my father also frequently saw in the welfare center where he worked as a HRA police sergeant coming in and virtually demanding help). Hearing things like that or your story pisses off the hell out of me. If you're poor enough to qualify for Medicaid that should mean you're too poor to afford any car, let alone a late model, higher-priced one. It's not like these people even need a car to get around in the city, so they should have had to sell it first before qualifying for any help. Heck, I've never made enough to be able to afford a car, and I know I wouldn't qualify for Medicaid, Food Stamps, or welfare if for no other reason than the color of my skin and the fact that I'm not a member of any of the "preferred" groups.

 

[its.fubar]

It seems the government and the FDA in the united states does want the people who cannot afford to purchase prescription drugs to die in the streets because the FDA has deem it unlawful to help people purchasing prescription drugs from Canada.this shows you what the republican enterprise system is all about and is this what is meant by free enterprise protectionism and control, YES you are truly free in the USA.

 

[Pradeep]

The cost of prescription drugs in the US is completely out of control. There is no excuse for having one drug cost $10 in Canada and the exact same thing costing $100 in the US. It's a bloody disgrace, there's no getting around it.

And I won't even approach the cost of health insurance (even without prescription coverage). It's a huge shock to me coming from Australia, where there is "free" health care for all. Obviously we all pay for it in our taxes but it's nothing like the cost of the US system. The only reason you would get private health insurance in Australia is if you wanted to chose the surgeon who will operate on you when you go into hospital, and also to avoid waiting queues for elective surgery. Prescription drug prices are fixed by the government. Zyrtec can be bought over the counter for the equivalent of US$10, here in the US it's prescription only and I believe closer to $60. The US drug companies make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from the sale of a single drug such as Prilosec. The cost of Medicaid in the neighbouring county means that over 60% of it's tax revenue goes to paying it's share to the Feds. Of course the FDA only cares about the big bucks rolling in from the drug boys, so it's moving against the companies that make it easier for the most needy elderly people to get cheaper drugs from Canada.

And as Merc has shown, not just people in retirement homes need prescription drugs. My wife takes Protonix, and if it wasn't for insurance she would be paying about $110 for 30 pills. If she drove over the border to Canada she could get them for $60. There's a ton of buses going over every day full of people looking to save hundreds on their drugs, for them it's a matter of deciding whether to eat or pay for their drugs.

It looks like the US wants to put pressure on Australia to increase the prices in the PBS scheme:

""They behave like the tobacco companies," says one critic of the giant American and European pharmaceutical companies. "And they're making a quite immoral profit.""

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7717566%5E28737,00.html

And this is an interesting read:

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pkt/2003II/msg00517.html

flagreen: I believe any hospital has to give you life saving treatment, no matter if you have insurance or not. But that doesn't mean they are going to give you a heart transplant. They might patch you up if your guts have spilled from a gunshot to the belly or something. And most people who end up going to the hospital without insurance end up filing for bankruptcy from the debt burden.

 

[bahngeist]

That every Canadian can actually see a doctor when he or she is sick?

Isn't it more the case that they are able to see a doctor when they are allowed to? And not necessarily when they feel they need to, or when they want to? Is this perhaps why the out of pocket expenses are slightly higher than ours rather than lower as one might expect them to be with a national health program?

How many public hospitals here in the U.S. will refuse emergency room treatment to someone who cannot afford to pay?

In Canada, in general, a person can generally see a GP of their choice in fairly short order depending on the doctor's patient load; as in most other places, seeing a specialist is another thing altogether. One of the greatest problems are certain diagnositic processes (e.g., MRI) and surgery, where waiting periods may extend easily to four-six months which may prove fatal in respect of cancer, etc.

And Canadians do pay premiums for universal health care premium (in most provinces anyway), it isn't entirely free unless a person has a sufficiently low income. But compared to what private health insurance costs in the U.S., those premiums are a pittance.

As for the FDA's move to circumscribe the filling of prescriptions from Canadian sources: their rationale is that Canada's standards aren't as high as theirs, and are thus protecting U.S. citizens. This is BS since both countries are fairly equal in respect od their testing and standards -- what the FDA is protecting are the artificially high prices the U.S. pharmaceutical companies are charging (in part to offset their advertising costs, the instrinsic value of which escapes me completely).

 

[Howell]

What's an approximate Canadian universal health care premium?

Since the FDA does not have the power to punish pharmes ..pharma.. drug manufacturers in Canada I don't see how they could ever legitimize the widespread purchase of Canadian manufactured drugs.

 

[bahngeist]

... Since the FDA does not have the power to punish pharmes ..pharma.. drug manufacturers in Canada I don't see how they could ever legitimize the widespread purchase of Canadian manufactured drugs.

The last time I lived in Alberta (2000), the premiums were roughly $160 CDN for an adult for a three month period.

Although the FDA cannot punish Canadian drug manufacturers directly, they could have U.S. Customs interdict shipments. The most obvious example are mail order shipments, which are relatively easy to intercept. There are many largish mail order pharmacies in Canada whose principal business is filling U.S. prescriptions, and these are the outfits that the FDA particularly wishes to target. In effect they aren't going after the manufacturers, they are going after the suppliers.

Another option would be to have U.S. Customs target the known bus tours outfits whose principle business is ferrying retirees across the border to fill their prescriptions. When they cross back, it would be a simple matter of ensuring that the passengers declare their purchases and pay duties. If they made it overly onerous, this would serve as a form of dissuasion. Of course, this would be a poor PR move and invite a grassroots backlash.

Something else that the U.S. government could do is initiate a trade dispute, possibly directing it towards an export that is particularly dear to Canada. A condition for settling the dispute would be that Canada toughen its regulations covering drug exports to the U.S. This tactic has often been used in other situations and has proven to be quite effective.

 

[CougTek]

The problem isn't with Canada having lower quality drugs (it's not the case, Ottawa's regulation is just as tight as yours and I would dare to say, probably more impartial towards rich pharmaceutic companies), but with the outrageous prices the US drug companies ask for their products within US. Not because they are worth it, but because no one forbids them to do it. Don't penalize others for a problem within your borders. You (well, your politicians, whatever) screwed up on the drug market by letting the prices skyrocketed and didn't do your job to protect the citizen against powerful corps. Canadian and Québécois governments did (at least, partially).

Instead of working to find ways to help increasing the profits of the selfish and soul-less US drug companies, that don't care at all for the welfare of ordinary people, but only for the health of their bank accounts, why don't you try to find ways to make the drug prices drop to less revolting levels?

I simply can't stand the "let's protect our companies' interests, even if they are wrong" morality. I'm against strong-arming the Canadian government to tighten drug exportations. Not because I'm backing canadian companies (me backing anything from Canada, dream on), but because cheaper medication would help ordinary people in States not to fill up bankrupcy or stop eating every time they catch a cold.

Being American and being against drugs' price drop is stupid at best (for anyone not owning shares of drug corp.) or immoral at worst. I just can't figure out some idiotic patriot at the counter insisting to be ripped off by US-made pills instead of paying a fraction of the cost for the same damn pills made elsewhere (I imagine that other countries than Canada and Québec make pills). Meating such a moron, I would understand your obstination to carry guns and I would certainly put one to good use.

 

[Howell]

Are there any Canadian pharma companies doing research? This is what you pay for with high priced drugs.

You might find these articles interesting.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...2300.html+canada+drug+research&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.innovationstrategy.gc.ca/cmb/innovation.nsf/SectoralE/Pharmaceuticals

http://www.galen.org/pdrugs.asp?docID=562
http://www.galen.org/healthabroad.asp?docID=558

Put on your boots boys. It's getting deep in here.

 

[Howell]

PRICES AND AVAILABILITY OF PHARMACEUTICALS: EVIDENCE FROM NINE COUNTRIES

Authors: Patricia Danzon and Michael Furukawa

Source: Health Affairs Web Exclusive, 10/29/03

“Drug price differentials between countries roughly reflect income differences (except for Chile and Mexico),” finds a new study by Patricia Danzon and Michael Furukawa of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Their study compares average price levels for prescription drugs in the United States to those in eight other countries - Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and the UK. “Our most comprehensive indexes, adjusted for U.S. manufacturer discounts, show Japan’s prices to be higher than U.S. prices, and other countries’ prices ranging from 6 percent to 33 percent lower than U.S. prices,” write the authors. “Our findings suggest that U.S.–foreign price differentials are roughly in line with income and smaller for drugs than for other medical services.”

Annoyingly long URL

 

[CougTek]

Are there any Canadian pharma companies doing research? This is what you pay for with high priced drugs.

From the second link you provided :

In 2001, Canada accounted for 10% of the global new medicines discovered, despite representing only 1.8% of the world pharmaceutical market.

Pretty good ratio for a country that supposedly "prevent research"

As for your first link, it looks like poor PR by some US pharmaceutic lobbyist. I didn't read the last two.

Believe what you want, but consider that drugs' prices haven't been problematic enough here to become a subject of national debates. When you factor in that the average income of Canadians and Québécois is lower than the annual earnings of the average Yankee, it should spark something in your mind.

 

[CougTek]

And please someone fix that annoyingly long url.

 

[bahngeist]

When answering Howell’s question (re. how CDN mail-order drug shipments could be curtailed), please take in mind that I don’t advocate in any way the options I summarized. I was simply answering the (implied) question.

Of note is that many of the sites/articles that Howell provided, and CougTek responded to, are hardly neutral sources (although they did balance each other out somewhat). The Galen Institute is a Tax Reform advocacy group and ultraconservative to the point that they make the current administration almost ‘pinko’ in comparison. The simple truth is that some drugs are cheaper in Canada; and others are cheaper in the U.S – it generally equals out on a per capita, income-adjusted basis across the board.

One thing that any informed Canadian businessperson would tell you, if they were being honest, is that the national health care program provides them a competitive advantage to American companies. As far as it can, the program facilitates the maintenance of a healthy work force. And it also takes the cost burden of having to provide a basic health benefit off of their shoulders. The beauty of this—particularly to corporations—is that in the long run it is the taxes paid by the work force (particularly the middle class) that maintains this advantage since few large Canadian businesses actually pay any form of income tax.

 

[CougTek]

And of course, I suppose that American companies pay a lot of taxes too...

I'm not in favor of people paying taxes a lot more than corporations, but I don't think Canayan and Québécois companies are worst on this chapter than U.S. ones. The problem of the low contribution of corporations is larger than just the practice of a single country. It's a problem mainly created by the way world trade is currently implemented. Every country tries to create the most favorable business climate possible so that powerful multinational corp come or simply stay instead of leaving for less stricted places. U.S. is losing a lot of jobs this way for foreign countries BTW, but since this only increases the fortune of U.S. most influent people (bastards), nothing will be made to change the situation. It's a rotten world.

The root of the problem is the neo-liberalism and neo-capitalism phylosophy that rule the world nowadays. But that is beyond the purpose of this thread.

I believe countries should stop financing big corporations and focus their economy on small businesses that can't move easily to another country. Small and medium businesses means stability AND independance for any given country. Politics would be more influenced by democracy than by powerul lobby. If politicians would choke big corporations instead of bending to them, this world would be a better place. Flowers would grow, bird would sing and little children would always smile. No, I don't take drugs.

 

[bahngeist]

And of course, I suppose that American companies pay a lot of taxes too...

Touche, to a degree -- but many large U.S. corporations have moved their headquarters offshore to reduce their tax burden significantly, and are still able to garner juicy public-financed contracts. A few congressmen/senators have tried to introduce measures to curtail this practice, but get nowhere.

...Every country tries to create the most favorable business climate possible so that powerful multinational corp come or simply stay instead of leaving for less stricted places...

Yes, and domestically many states/provinces, and even municipalities, will compete with each other by offering tax breaks and other incentives to attract large employers or projects. What often happens though is that the corporation reaps the benefits while the local tax base takes up the slack and/or in other instances it (the corporation) demands even more incentives or threatens to pull out. In the long run, such artificial quick fixes don't work and often weaken the local economy.

And it is the middle class that pays the price, and often these are the area's small to medium-sized businesses. The irony, as you pointed out, is that it is those same businesses that form the foundation for a healthy and sustainable local economy. But how many politicians or senior bureaucrats really care about that ...

 

[its.fubar]

Now consider this, the word "protectionism" is the united states supposed to be the land of the free,then why is it almost impossible to purchase something from the net in the unites states and have the ship to another country,I have found that my visa card works correctly and without any problems when I am in the USA,for example ATM`s, hiring a car of purchasing anything I wish to buy, is there's something I'm missing And wasn't it the meaning of the net to bring everybody closer without hindrance.

just an extra though, I will once again be in the U.S. in December so considering the low value of the dollar it will be a good idea to do my Christmas shopping their, I will be in the Denver area So if anyone has any ideas on where to get the best deals on computers and electronics in this area I would appreciate your help.

 

[Howell]

The Galen Institute is a Tax Reform advocacy group and ultraconservative to the point that they make the current administration almost ‘pinko’ in comparison.

I'm not sure if that's accurate and if it is I'm not sure what difference it makes. This sounds like an argument "to the man" not the issue. I get these terms confused, Is that Ad Hominem?

 

[Fushigi]

Now consider this, the word "protectionism" is the united states supposed to be the land of the free,then why is it almost impossible to purchase something from the net in the unites states and have the ship to another country,I have found that my visa card works correctly and without any problems when I am in the USA,for example ATM`s, hiring a car of purchasing anything I wish to buy, is there's something I'm missing And wasn't it the meaning of the net to bring everybody closer without hindrance.

just an extra though, I will once again be in the U.S. in December so considering the low value of the dollar it will be a good idea to do my Christmas shopping their, I will be in the Denver area So if anyone has any ideas on where to get the best deals on computers and electronics in this area I would appreciate your help.

I think many sites refrain from international business because of higher shipping prices & potential complications (like customs, handling package returns, etc.) than with any hindrance from the government. There are also export restrictions on some computer products that incorporate encryption. Even more is the need to know whether a product is legal to provide to a citizen of a country. Take Amazon: buy a piece of classic literature and you may find it's on the banned book list of some government.

Regardless, I hope you enjoy your stay in the US. I can't help with anywhere specific in the Denver area as I've never been there but you should have decent luck finding nearly any kind of gift. There are plenty of national chains with reasonable prices so if there's a particular item you're looking for we can probably let you know a chain store that carries it.

 

[blakerwry]

i've never seen a decent computer shop there, but I have only been to the capitol area and along Highway I-70.