Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would seem like the easiest part of health care costs to reform receives very little attention from MSM or our elected officials.
If Americans were able to purchase prescription medication over the internet from either Canada, UK, or Israel -- with a valid presciption -- the cost of health care would be dramatically reduced. Where is the bill for that?
In deed, the cost of medication continues to rise, but very little has been done about it. If you listen to the Pharms they will tell you that it is the cost of R&D, which must mean Ripoff and Dupe the American public because the pharms spend far more on advertising than they do on R&D. It would appear that have purchased the current president, paid for town hallers, and framed the legislation so they actually will be better off after reform than before reform.
President Bush was able to pass through a massive windfall for the pharms when he helped pass the medication for seniors which subsidized payments for medication. Understand it did not reduce the cost of medication only paid for part of the cost out of taxpayer money. SOcialized it. Why would a Republican president and a congress of enough Republicans to block the bill pass what amounts to socialized medicine?
Answer, the big pharms own congress. They are single largest lobbyist group in the United States. They have more power than any single group. Where do they get so much money...you and I.
Of course it is not just the Republicans, Obama seems to have cut a back door deal with the pharms as well, and through Dick Armey it appears the pharms are trying to control the hearts and minds of our congress...that is until is unfortunate ouster after his scheme was exposed.
Insist on competition for the pharms. Lets have free trade on medication...
What would seem like the easiest part of health care costs to reform receives very little attention from MSM or our elected officials.
If Americans were able to purchase prescription medication over the internet from either Canada, UK, or Israel -- with a valid presciption -- the cost of health care would be dramatically reduced. Where is the bill for that?
In deed, the cost of medication continues to rise, but very little has been done about it. If you listen to the Pharms they will tell you that it is the cost of R&D, which must mean Ripoff and Dupe the American public because the pharms spend far more on advertising than they do on R&D. It would appear that have purchased the current president, paid for town hallers, and framed the legislation so they actually will be better off after reform than before reform.
President Bush was able to pass through a massive windfall for the pharms when he helped pass the medication for seniors which subsidized payments for medication. Understand it did not reduce the cost of medication only paid for part of the cost out of taxpayer money. SOcialized it. Why would a Republican president and a congress of enough Republicans to block the bill pass what amounts to socialized medicine?
Answer, the big pharms own congress. They are single largest lobbyist group in the United States. They have more power than any single group. Where do they get so much money...you and I.
Of course it is not just the Republicans, Obama seems to have cut a back door deal with the pharms as well, and through Dick Armey it appears the pharms are trying to control the hearts and minds of our congress...that is until is unfortunate ouster after his scheme was exposed.
Insist on competition for the pharms. Lets have free trade on medication...
You're absolutely right. There are a ton of ways to make this work. The problem is, the administration won't take the time to sit down and hear all sides of how this can be accomplished. They just want it their way and that's final. Seriously think about this. Obama took more time to decide on a dog than he is giving to HC! Now that speaks volumes about their real agenda.
You're absolutely right. There are a ton of ways to make this work. The problem is, the administration won't take the time to sit down and hear all sides of how this can be accomplished. They just want it their way and that's final. Seriously think about this. Obama took more time to decide on a dog than he is giving to HC! Now that speaks volumes about their real agenda.
You have to ask, where are the rest of the congressmen, both Democrat and Republican. Have you heard one congressperson advocating on pharm reform. Have you heard one talk about increased competition for pharms. This should be a republican issue based on fair trade, capitalism, and competition. Where are they on this?
What would seem like the easiest part of health care costs to reform receives very little attention from MSM or our elected officials.
If Americans were able to purchase prescription medication over the internet from either Canada, UK, or Israel -- with a valid presciption -- the cost of health care would be dramatically reduced. Where is the bill for that?
In deed, the cost of medication continues to rise, but very little has been done about it. If you listen to the Pharms they will tell you that it is the cost of R&D, which must mean Ripoff and Dupe the American public because the pharms spend far more on advertising than they do on R&D. It would appear that have purchased the current president, paid for town hallers, and framed the legislation so they actually will be better off after reform than before reform.
President Bush was able to pass through a massive windfall for the pharms when he helped pass the medication for seniors which subsidized payments for medication. Understand it did not reduce the cost of medication only paid for part of the cost out of taxpayer money. SOcialized it. Why would a Republican president and a congress of enough Republicans to block the bill pass what amounts to socialized medicine?
Answer, the big pharms own congress. They are single largest lobbyist group in the United States. They have more power than any single group. Where do they get so much money...you and I.
Of course it is not just the Republicans, Obama seems to have cut a back door deal with the pharms as well, and through Dick Armey it appears the pharms are trying to control the hearts and minds of our congress...that is until is unfortunate ouster after his scheme was exposed.
Insist on competition for the pharms. Lets have free trade on medication...
The easiest thing to cut health care costs would be to eliminate litigation. It costs 200 billion dollars per year by indirect costs of increased defensive medicine.
Do you know why drugs cost different amounts in different countries? The situation is not such that the price of these meds are actually very low and they just randomly jack up the price here there and everywhere. The prices are dictated by the market in that specific country, but mostly by global revenues. If profit margins fall in the US, drug companies will raise prices elsewhere to balance those losses. These are global companies and the drugs sold in Canada and the UK are the same meds we buy. Medicare already negotiates lower script prices for their enrollees. Insurance companies negotiate contracts for drug prices as well. If the prices fall in the US due to reduce demand by these entities purchasing drugs from different countries, it would permit prices to fall short term, then there would be a global readjustment of prices. The drug companies have no greater profit margin than any other industry and will not just go out of buisness- they will adjust prices elsewhere or cut research into new drugs to balance losses.
The easiest thing to cut health care costs would be to eliminate litigation. It costs 200 billion dollars per year by indirect costs of increased defensive medicine.
Do you know why drugs cost different amounts in different countries? The situation is not such that the price of these meds are actually very low and they just randomly jack up the price here there and everywhere. The prices are dictated by the market in that specific country, but mostly by global revenues. If profit margins fall in the US, drug companies will raise prices elsewhere to balance those losses. These are global companies and the drugs sold in Canada and the UK are the same meds we buy. Medicare already negotiates lower script prices for their enrollees. Insurance companies negotiate contracts for drug prices as well. If the prices fall in the US due to reduce demand by these entities purchasing drugs from different countries, it would permit prices to fall short term, then there would be a global readjustment of prices. The drug companies have no greater profit margin than any other industry and will not just go out of buisness- they will adjust prices elsewhere or cut research into new drugs to balance losses.
I think you economics are a little off Doctor. You seem to imply that the pharms can simply raise their prices in Europe to adjust for the lower return in the U.S. If the Pharms could raise their prices in Europe and get away with it, they would have already done it. However, even if we assumed that you were right, which I of course don't. Then there is no problem in allowing U.S. consumers to purchase from other countries...as you say they are the exact same drugs we purchase here. What is the problem.
Of course, your opinion on this subject is suspect because a lot of Doctors get a lot of little goodies from the pharms don't they. I would say the whole medical profession has made the problem much worse than it is. After all, you are the people that prescribe drugs that in a lot of cases are not needed or could offer the patients a cheaper alternative. Here is your next arguement..."but the drugs are not actually the same". Yeah, yeah. You know this because the Pharms spend millions making visits to Doctors, taking them lunch, giving them free samples, and a host of other enticements to "educate" them on the benefits of their "new" drug, which in a lot of cases is not really new at all.
I think you economics are a little off Doctor. You seem to imply that the pharms can simply raise their prices in Europe to adjust for the lower return in the U.S. If the Pharms could raise their prices in Europe and get away with it, they would have already done it. However, even if we assumed that you were right, which I of course don't. Then there is no problem in allowing U.S. consumers to purchase from other countries...as you say they are the exact same drugs we purchase here. What is the problem.
Of course, your opinion on this subject is suspect because a lot of Doctors get a lot of little goodies from the pharms don't they. I would say the whole medical profession has made the problem much worse than it is. After all, you are the people that prescribe drugs that in a lot of cases are not needed or could offer the patients a cheaper alternative. Here is your next arguement..."but the drugs are not actually the same". Yeah, yeah. You know this because the Pharms spend millions making visits to Doctors, taking them lunch, giving them free samples, and a host of other enticements to "educate" them on the benefits of their "new" drug, which in a lot of cases is not really new at all.
Goodies? It is interesting that people constantly say that and believe it. We used to get ink pens. Now we get nothing from the reps, as it is illegal.
We use generic or older drugs intially and move on to other meds if the cheaper meds fail.
I do not care where people get meds. It does not make any difference to me. Again, the solution you describe is not as simple as you might think and will result in very little difference in drug prices.
Eliminating litigation, on the other hand, would pay for all the uninsured in a national health plan. Who do we want to give our money to- lawyers or the uninsured?
You have to ask, where are the rest of the congressmen, both Democrat and Republican. Have you heard one congressperson advocating on pharm reform. Have you heard one talk about increased competition for pharms. This should be a republican issue based on fair trade, capitalism, and competition. Where are they on this?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are all being paid off by big pharma.
Goodies? It is interesting that people constantly say that and believe it. We used to get ink pens. Now we get nothing from the reps, as it is illegal.
We use generic or older drugs intially and move on to other meds if the cheaper meds fail.
I do not care where people get meds. It does not make any difference to me. Again, the solution you describe is not as simple as you might think and will result in very little difference in drug prices.
Eliminating litigation, on the other hand, would pay for all the uninsured in a national health plan. Who do we want to give our money to- lawyers or the uninsured?
You know the more you talk the further in the hole you go. You should quit while you are behind, but keep it up it is fun.
Recent article states that 4 out of 5 doctors receive benefits such as free meals etc. from the big pharms.
And another thing, at what point did you start speaking for all doctors. Did they all send you a consent form. You use the word "we" quite frequently as if you were the voice of all doctors. I know doctors and you don't speak for them, and besides my cites that I provided, I personally know doctors who get free meals all of the time as well as samples. If it is illegal as you say, then apparently 4 out of 5 doctors are crooks. That may be true , but for the rest I call BS. You have absolutely no credibility.
You're absolutely right. There are a ton of ways to make this work. The problem is, the administration won't take the time to sit down and hear all sides of how this can be accomplished. They just want it their way and that's final. Seriously think about this. Obama took more time to decide on a dog than he is giving to HC! Now that speaks volumes about their real agenda.
For starters i agree 100% with you Robert on you first topic, but the dog comment is partisan politics. I know you're just airing your frustrations, but you do not seriously believe, that Obama spends more time thinking about naming his dog then he does public issues? (His children and wife may spend more time focusing on those family issues, but i doubt he cared little about whatever dog they got. I think he was more using it as a "dog and pony" show, to help the image of he and his family as a first family.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are all being paid off by big pharma.
I agree ... on both sides. Even if the congressman does not receive dime one, if he goes against the pharm they can just throw a lot of money at his opponent to get the good guy gone. It is control by intimidation. We all know that usually the candidate with the most contributions wins the race.
Pharms are neither Republican or democrat and will spend money on either side to further their agenda. They are the most powerfull lobby in the country. If there was proper pharm reform, you should be able to buy 94% of your meds from Wallmart for $4.00 with out paying one dime more in taxes or the government incurring any more debt. In fact we should be able to spend less on taxes as we already pay for overpriced drugs through medicaid, medicare and the VA.
Last edited by hotair2; 08-21-2009 at 12:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
