Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (17079)	11/21/2003 3:24:31 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793681

Good article on a tough issue. I suspect the long term solution will be reimportation allowed with large tax incentives for New Drug development. A bad way out. Welcome aboard, Sam! November 21, 2003, 9:16 a.m. TRIPping Cures Burying a bad idea. By Kevin Hassett — Kevin Hassett is a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. As congressional negotiators finalize their Medicare bill, they've decided to allow drug reimportation only if regulators sign off on the safety of reimported drugs. The safety issue is so serious that it is highly unlikely drug reimportation will be allowed any time soon. Thank heavens. This is good news for Americans because the alternative — extensive reimportation — would likely have destroyed the incentives that U.S. firms have to develop new drugs. Cancer patients hoping for a new cure for their disease could abandon hope. Such a terrible outcome would have followed because of the basic economics of the drug industry. U.S. drug firms must negotiate contracts with government monopolies in almost every developed nation. Socialized medicine allows a nation to exclude a U.S. product from its market if the U.S. firm does not make generous enough price concessions. Accordingly, what has developed is a system within which U.S. firms make large profits on new drugs in the U.S. market, but very low profits on sales everywhere else. These profit differentials show up as big differences in prices, with U.S. patients essentially subsidizing the healthcare of the rest of the world. It certainly is annoying that French consumers pay less for many drugs than we do. But if we allow roundtrip trade, whereby a U.S. firm sells a product to France just above marginal cost and then that product is sold back to a U.S. patient at the same price, then drug firms lose their ability to profit from their successful drugs. Without profits on the winners to help offset the many drugs that go through trials and then fail, it is hard to imagine why anyone would try to develop a new drug. Reimportation would have delivered a world with very low prices for drugs that have already been discovered, and very few new discoveries. So why did we get so close to adopting this terrible policy even though supposedly free-market ideologues control Congress? The answer is that many conservative Republicans felt reimportation might change the dynamics of price negotiations between U.S. firms and foreign governments enough so that the foreign free riders might finally pay more. Under the threat of losing their profits to imports, U.S. firms would hold the line at a higher price. If true, then reimportation might even increase the profitability of drug discovery and increase research and development. However, our current international agreement for drug trade (the so-called TRIPS agreement) essentially handcuffs our drug companies when they negotiate with other countries. It allows a country to violate a drug patent — steal the new drug — if the country is unable to negotiate a contract at "reasonable commercial terms." This condition may also be waived if a country declares a national emergency. In essence, the TRIPS agreement allows foreign governments to extort price concessions from drug companies. The bottom line is that reimportation would attack our own companies rather than our strong-arming trading partners. If policymakers wish to shift the burden in paying for new drugs toward foreign patients, they should push for changes to the TRIPS agreement that put the price negotiations on a more level playing field. Now that it appears that the bad idea is dead, let us be sure to put a stake in its heart. If we don't, it will be certain to rise from the grave. nationalreview.com

To: Sam who wrote (17079)	11/24/2003 9:10:49 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793681

Like everything from Stratfor, this is overblown and overdramatized, but the issue is an interesting one. It’s a huge exaggeration to claim that there is an “alignment” between Iran and the US simply because the Iranians have accepted the IGC and the American timetable for the transfer of power. It's also a huge exaggeration to say that the Americans are turning to the IGC to raise a Shiite army to take over the fight against Sunni and foreign rebels, guerillas, terrorists, whatever you want to call them. The Americans are turning more power over to the IGC because they need the legitimacy conferred by an Iraqi governing unit, and there’s no other entity in place. I don’t think the US authorities on the spot are comfortable with the Shiite domination of the IGC, but they have no real choice but to work with them. The Iranians are quite willing to go along with that, since they see the IGC as an entity that will give them significant influence in a post-occupation Iraq. The Iranians would love to see the US out of Iraq as quickly as possible, and power turned over to the IGC. They will accept the American timetable because it gives them a free concession: they can’t do anything about it, so they might as well score diplomatic points by publicly accepting it. Iran is, of course, perfectly capable of publicly supporting the IGC and the US timetable and at the same time trying to accelerate that timetable by covertly aiding foreign terrorists inside Iraq. The IGC, of course, is anything but a coherent entity, though all parties will try to make it look like one until the Americans pull out. It is, of course, entirely probable that the end result of the American occupation of Iraq will be a Shiite-dominated Islamist government, allied to Iran, hostile to Israel, and very likely supportive of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, though possibly not of Al Qaeda. Such a government would likely bring very hard times for the Sunnis, and could spark a Kurdish separation. All of these possibilities were predicted well before our invasion, so nobody can say that they weren’t warned. This comment in the Stratfor piece really struck me: When the United States invaded Iraq, the expectation was that the destruction of Iraq's conventional forces and the fall of Baghdad would end resistance. Did anybody really believe that?