Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[ML]

Maybe you are not aware of the fact that pharmaceuticals are covered by patents lasting 15-20 years from their approval ?

Granted that, by the time a new drug is on the market, that period may have shrunk to 8-10 years, but this is also due to pharma companies rushing to secure patent coverage before the clinical trials, etc. required to have it approved for distribution by some regulatory agency like the FDA.
Maybe you are also not aware that a company producing a drug patented by a different company first has to secure a license from the latter, which also involves paying royalties for the privilege ?

So, where/when are US pharma companies & Mericans exploited?

I am fully  aware of both points you raise.

Doesn't change at all the facts that Mericans pay the big bucks for drugs which helps cover the R&D costs and 'most' other citizens of the world then benefit by having to pay only the variable costs which can include licensing.

The identical drugs are sold in various countries by the original developers . . . at vastly different prices . . . within the patent period.

[SANDRO43]

Doesn't change at all the facts that Mericans pay the big bucks for drugs which helps cover the R&D costs and 'most' other citizens of the world then benefit by having to pay only the variable costs which can include licensing.The identical drugs are sold in various countries by the original developers . . . at vastly different prices . . . within the patent period.

So Mericans are being scammed by Merican pharma companies ?

You should address a stern complaint to your Senator/Representative - but first check whether the state he/she represents hosts significant pharma plants .

[ML]

So Mericans are being scammed by Merican pharma companies ?

Let's stick with the 'exploited' word.  I like it today.

Yes, Mericans are being exploited by Merican pharma companies AND by citizens of other countries of the world.

If citizens of other countries paid more for the drugs, they would help pay for some of the R&D costs currently borne mostly by Mericans.

We are exploited by everyone.

[SANDRO43]

Let's stick with the 'exploited' word. I like it today.

Good word, but rather 'loaded' historically :

   

The Winter Palace in Washington ?

[Eduard]

So now you have it: O'bummer versus Romney/Ryan. The sparks are going to fly!

[calmissile]

Let's stick with the 'exploited' word.  I like it today.

Yes, Mericans are being exploited by Merican pharma companies AND by citizens of other countries of the world.

If citizens of other countries paid more for the drugs, they would help pay for some of the R&D costs currently borne mostly by Mericans.

We are exploited by everyone.

Agree, however I think you are overlooking one of the significant reasons that drugs are much more expensive in the USA.  That reason is all the exposure to lawsuits.  Until we have serious tort reform, we will continute to see inflated prices of nearly everything, including drugs.

Neither political party has the  balls to take on the lawyers.  Health care would be significantly less expensive if we had tort reform and get the freeloading illegal aliens out of the health care system.

[BC]

Neither political party has the  balls to take on the lawyers.  Health care would be significantly less expensive if we had tort reform and get the freeloading illegal aliens out of the health care system.

Yeah, tort reform would probably knock off about 10%.  Illegals are not necessarily 'freeloaders' though.. they help keep veggie and fruit costs down and mow your lawn for a decent price along with many other jobs even a high school student would not want to take on... that's pretty much an even trade.  Can't live with 'em can't live without 'em kinda deal.

Fraud is probably the biggest problem of them all though..

[Shadow]

What people may forget it that in the EU people rarely pay the full price when buying meds. In most cases the Government pays part or subsidises, as almost every EU country has a form of Obamacare.

[remiel6]

Tort reform is not going to work. All tort reform does is shield the drug maker from higher lawsuits. This is a myth that if the lawsuit goes away then magically the prices will go down. In fact it is very difficult to win a medical malpractice claim. Over some 90% of them are won by the defendant in the case. This has been true for quite some time, yet malpractice insurance has gone up, why is this? The rule is simple. If i know that you'll pay $150 for X why on gods green earth would I ever charge you less? I wouldn't. No one wants to hear this, but serious changes in drug prices will not come without some kind of Government or health insurance change.
There is another incorrect point. The makers of drugs already have a certain amount of shielding from litigation that is given them by the government as a method of encouraging them to make drugs.
Lastly, the drugs that are being reffered to many times do those clinical trials in Europe where the regulations are more lax and its easier for them to get approval for the clinical studies. 

[Turboguy]

Tort reform is not going to work. All tort reform does is shield the drug maker from higher lawsuits. This is a myth that if the lawsuit goes away then magically the prices will go down. In fact it is very difficult to win a medical malpractice claim. Over some 90% of them are won by the defendant in the case.

The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.   

[BC]

remiel6,

Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world. "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."[1] National expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an OECD average of 17.7% (2003 figures).[2] The high price of prescription drugs is one of the major areas of discussion in the U.S. health care reform debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States

Sure, tort reform would resolve only part of the problem..

Prices of brand name drugs in the United States are significantly higher than in Canada, India, the UK and other countries, nearly all of which have price controls. Prices for generic drugs tend to be higher in Canada. The price differential for brand-name drugs between the U.S. and Canada has led Americans to purchase more than US$1 billion in drugs per year from Canadian pharmacies.

Prescription drug prices, in particular as part of Medicare, have become a political issue in the United States.
The pharmaceutical industry has thousands of lobbyists in Washington, DC, that lobby Congress and protect their interests. The pharmaceutical industry spent $855 million, more than any other industry, on lobbying activities from 1998 to 2006, according to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.

What it boils down to is that in the US, big pharma woo's politicians to not implement price controls, especially in government programs.  I'd be willing to bet though that the major HMO's and other medical providers, due to their economies of scale are not paying the 'sticker' price for their orders.

In countries where universal health care is provided, the government has bargaining power, just like a HMO in the US would.

In the US, the government does not have the power to control prices and allows pharma to price their goods as they see fit.  Here, for prescription medicine one pays a small amount per prescription package - a couple EUR.  The government maintains a list of the prescriptions that they subsidize and pharma wants to be on that list even if it requires discounted pricing.  If a generic substitute is available it will be listed and subsidized, but even the brand name will meet/match the generic price just to be listed!!  If a patient absolutely wants the brand name and it's not subsidized, they pay the difference.

In the US and even Canada, producers of generics often have agreements with the original patent producer to keep their prices high. http://www.prweb.com/releases/lipitor/generic/prweb9008008.htm

Another interesting item..  pharmacies here in the south are quite flexible.. aside from narcotics, I can usually just walk in to a pharmacy and get a prescription drug without a prescription.  Lets say I need an antibiotic like Tavanic which requires a prescription and costs around 10 bucks..  In the US I would have to go to a doctor, spend an hour and 50 or 60 bucks for the script.. and that is only if he/she doesn't insist on doing some tests first which can easily add another 120 bucks.  Heck paying 10 bucks and not wasting a couple hours trying to get a script is worth it even without the subsidy.

Seems that in the US I would pay over 50 bucks for this same antibiotic...  so all in all we're easily talking 100 to 200 bucks or more in the US for a med that should really cost only 10.

It's a ripoff.... really.... and sorta explains why there are major pharmacies on just about every corner in the US.. often right across the street from each other.  These pharmacies also leverage the manufacturers.... and get a hefty cut doing so.

[BC]

The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.

TG.. in this case, the defendant is the medical provider....  think you got it ass backwards... lol

But... most of these claims are likely settled by arbitration out of court and not 'won' in front of a jury.

[Turboguy]

BC,

No, I didn't get it backwards.  That was my point.  Howeve in real life I rhink most are settled.   It is usualy cheaper to settle even a frivelous suit than to go to trial.

[BC]

BC,

No, I didn't get it backwards.  That was my point.  Howeve in real life I rhink most are settled.   It is usualy cheaper to settle even a frivelous suit than to go to trial.

Yeah, seems I indeed misread your post.  sorrii... 

[Eduard]

The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.

I agree, Ray. Free market would bring the price of insurance down IMO. If insurance companies are allowed to compete across state lines and their loss potential is reduced drastically by the TORT (love this word! Means "cake" in Russian )
prices will come down, it's only logical.

[calmissile]

Tort cases has been a sore spot to me for quite some time.  It began when the law changed allowing lawyers to advertise on TV, Billboards, etc.  The ads were clearly illustrative of the ambulance chasing scum bags that were out to promote lawsuits.

The next personal experience was when I owned a general aviation avionics corporation.  The liability insurance for aircraft manufacturers increased so much that it all but destroyed the manufacture of general aviation aircraft in the US.  I can't find the statistic at the moment, but the cost of purchasing an aircraft at the time included a very large percentage of the total cost as being liability insurance for the manufacturer.  The end result was that the increased costs reduced sales to almost nothing.

Here is a very well written link that not only addresses the history of liability insurance costs in aviation, but several other industries as well.  A good read all the way to the end.

http://econlib.org/library/Enc/Liability.html

In the US, over many years we have been aware of the power of the Trial Lawyers in Congress.  They have spent huge sums of money to influence lawmakers to prevent any changes in the laws that would affect their pocketbooks.  With most of the lawmakers being lawyers, it seems like a good ol boys club that take care of each other.

If have read many articles about tort laws and how little affect changes would have on the cost of goods and services.  It just does not pass the smell test!

With the current debates on the huge increases in health care costs, I have also been trying to find impartial analysis's that break down the costs of health care and where the profits are going.  We know that doctors are making a lot LESS money than they did 20 years ago, yet the total costs have continued to increase.  Who the hell is making all this extra money.  While our politicians are compaining about the big picture of health care costs, no one (that  know of) has actually broke it down to explain where each segment is profiting and at what percentage.  Where is Ross Perot when we need him with his charts and graphs?  LOL.  It could be in fact a multifaceted answer that would require reform in many areas.  Until we are able to see the breakdown, it is difficult to evaluate what the solution(s) should be.

With respect to prescription drug costs there are arguments all over the place and still no detailed breakdown that nails the costs and profits as well as solutions that would lower the costs.  Many of the arguments do not even pass the 'smell test'.  For example, many Americans are going to Mexico and Canada to purchase the identical brand name drugs for huge savings over the cost in the US.  I don't know if Canada subsidizes drug costs, but I seriously doubt a country as poor as Mexico does so.  So why the disparity in costs for the same identical product in two countries that live side by side?  I have heard only two explanations that make any sense (other than the subsidy explanation).  One plausible explanation is that the drug companies charge what the market will bear.  The other explanation is that due to the exposure to tort lawsuits in the US, the drug companies have to cover the huge costs to cover the expected lawsuits.  Which is it, or is it both?
Even in past years, the drug companies still had the protection of their patents and the cost of drugs was much more reasonable than it is today!

What we really need in order to make an informed decision and to lobby our elected representatives is an accurate analysis of the whole health care costs which includes the doctors, drugs companies, insurance companies, hospitals, costs of labor, cost of tort lawsuits, the costs to provide free health care to the welfare clients and illegal aliens, etc.  Picking on only one small segment of the big pie to argue about it not going to solve the problem IMHO.

[Anotherkiwi]

...In the US, the government does not have the power to control prices and allows pharma to price their goods as they see fit.  Here, for prescription medicine one pays a small amount per prescription package - a couple EUR.  The government maintains a list of the prescriptions that they subsidize and pharma wants to be on that list even if it requires discounted pricing.  If a generic substitute is available it will be listed and subsidized, but even the brand name will meet/match the generic price just to be listed!!  If a patient absolutely wants the brand name and it's not subsidized, they pay the difference.

Exactly the same here - our standard prescription charge is $3.  I normally pay about $40 for a visit to the doctor.

Another interesting item..  pharmacies here in the south are quite flexible.. aside from narcotics, I can usually just walk in to a pharmacy and get a prescription drug without a prescription.  Lets say I need an antibiotic like Tavanic which requires a prescription and costs around 10 bucks..  In the US I would have to go to a doctor, spend an hour and 50 or 60 bucks for the script.. and that is only if he/she doesn't insist on doing some tests first which can easily add another 120 bucks.  Heck paying 10 bucks and not wasting a couple hours trying to get a script is worth it even without the subsidy.

Seems that in the US I would pay over 50 bucks for this same antibiotic...  so all in all we're easily talking 100 to 200 bucks or more in the US for a med that should really cost only 10.

It's a ripoff.... really.... and sorta explains why there are major pharmacies on just about every corner in the US.. often right across the street from each other.  These pharmacies also leverage the manufacturers.... and get a hefty cut doing so.

Interesting - I've never tried that but I don't think it's possible in our system.  Any chemist who tried dispensing a prescription medicine without a prescription would be for the high jump (and several have ended up with criminal records over the years for doing this).

[SANDRO43]

Interesting - I've never tried that but I don't think it's possible in our system.  Any chemist who tried dispensing a prescription medicine without a prescription would be for the high jump (and several have ended up with criminal records over the years for doing this).

Here pharmaceuticals may belong to one of three different classes:

- Class A: essentials and for chronic illnesses, free except for a base charge (ticket) varying from region to region - this accounts for most of our national pharma expenditure, since pharnacies obtain a state refund for the difference by submitting the filled prescription.
- Class C: not free.
- Class H: for hospital use (not for public sale).

Both A and C require a doctor's prescription, and the pharmacist must inform of the existence of any equivalent with a lower price (unless the doctor specified it's non-replaceable).

Pharmacies are authorised to provide pharmaceuticals without prescription in a number of cases (continuation of treatment, release from hospital, etc.) but this involves some cumbersome administrative paperwork.

BC lives in Southern Italy, an area renowned for its little concern with rules and regulations, from jumping red traffic lights to more serious cases of "forgetfulness/inattention" .

In his reported case, the parmacist may even have 'forgotten' to enter the sale in the ancient cash register

thereby pocketing a small tax-free amount .

[Gator]

The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.

Probably a good idea, but most members of Congress are attorneys who have been enriched by tort laws.  Do you believe they will change the system.

[Gator]

Yeah, tort reform would probably knock off about 10%.

It would be much more.  It is not just about cost of pharmaceuticals.
 
For example, our out-of-control tort laws create high awards and hence high costs for malpractice insurance.  I believe OB-GYN physicians pay well over $100k per year and as much as $200k for insurance dependent upon the state.   Family physicians pay much less. 
 
Because of malpractice tort laws, doctors prescribe expensive tests such as MRIs more than they should just to protect themselves.  Surgeons frequently work as teams. 
 
I spoke to my family physician about the healthcare issue.  His personal feeling is that while tort reform would work, a significant reduction in total healthcare costs would result from requiring patients to pay 20%.  Totally free healthcare prompts unnecessary visits.  And if helthcare was not free, maybe many patients would take better care of themselves.  We have an epidemic of diabetes in America, and the rate is even increasing rapidly among children.
 

[Gator]

Illegals are not necessarily 'freeloaders' though.. they help keep veggie and fruit costs down and mow your lawn for a decent price along with many other jobs even a high school student would not want to take on... that's pretty much an even trade.  Can't live with 'em can't live without 'em kinda deal.

There are many people who contend the cost of illegals is very high.   
 
Florida is a battleground state for the Presidential election, so I am besieged by ads and emails.   For topics that I understand, much of the barrage is erroneous.  I do not understand illegal aliens, but this email got my attention.  I wonder how true it is.   I imagine that this issue is debated in Europe as well. 
 
"CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps..
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, theyqualify for SSI.  Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills AND his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!"

[GQBlues]

More HOPE & CHANGE!

You got to know that when an imminent leak upon a ship is inevitable there's going to a huge bailout to follow...US taxpayers, better brace yourself for some serious shifting on the latest GM/Chrysler stock sell-offs and with it, your doomed tax giveaways to the Obama campaigning sponsoring cronies...

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13281710-auto-bailout-cost-now-upped-to-25-billion?lite

It would be interesting to know on who's 'buying' your bargain basement GM/Chrysler price stock shares...

[GQBlues]

YUP...

My favorite youtube summary of the present-day US socio-economic situation...

[remiel6]

"CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps..
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, theyqualify for SSI.  Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills AND his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!"

I avoid politics on this thread because it tends to make people mad. some of the things in the above quote I am not sure are true.
1. Most illegals that I knew personally worked construction jobs, they get paid more than 5 or 6 dollars an hour. Although I knew attorneys who hired illegals to clean thier house and justified it on the grounds that no one else would do that job. The amount she paid her maid, $500 a week.
2. Before I accept item 2 I want proof illegals are filing tax returns.
3. the health care is going to depend upon the state. Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.
4. Yes they don't pay insurance, but I've personally also seen them hauled into court for not having insurance and put in jail. Also seen them get sued for damages when they cause accidents. This is a double edged sword.
The problem I have with all of this is that the conservatives who do the most bitching about this never provided the money needed to take the illegals that are arrested and drive them out of the country. When we arrested them they were held in the county jail, immigration was informed and then never came to pick them up so the police release them. This policy requires actual cash to work. This might require an increase in taxes to pay for it. In the last election Obama made a very practical point. it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.
 

[calmissile]

YUP...

My favorite youtube summary of the present-day US socio-economic situation...

Very funny... and how true it is!!