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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Saturn V who wrote (183389)	2/2/2006 10:00:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Why are the American Drug Companies allowing the prices of their drugs to to controlled by the governments in other countries Because the alternative is to not seel the drug in the other countries. Or I suppose they could try to smuggle the drugs in an sell them on a black market but I don't think most drug companies want to operate like the Cali cartel. Tim

To: Saturn V who wrote (183389)	2/3/2006 1:18:03 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Saturn V, I would like to see a law disallowing differential pricing between USA and most of the developed world. Or else the system has to allow the Pharmacies to freely import drugs from other countries. The present gross differential transnational pricing is a travesty ! As with almost everyone else, you have the economics exactly backwards. Prescription drugs are characterized by huge development risks and costs and minimal marginal production costs. If a drug company sells a drug to the government of Liberia at production cost for free distribution among its population, everyone wins and no one loses, as long as the drugs stay in Liberia. Any single worldwide price would assure that the only Liberians to receive the drugs would be the leaders of government and other criminal enterprises. The same thing applies to Canada. The only people to suffer from controlled prices would be Canadian citizens themselves, as the availability of particular drugs would be limited to those that the drug makers and government could agree on a price for. If the government wants a discount price, it is going to have to ensure that the drugs are not significantly re-exported to the US. If the government fails in this task, then the drug companies will not sell to Canada. Anything the drug companies sell to Canada, even at a discount, is still positive incremental revenue. US consumers are no worse off if Canadians pay low, controlled prices because the prices Americans pay are not affected by anything that happens in Canada, as long as the drugs stay there. It is a myth that US consumers can significantly benefit if the US drug companies just drop ship into Canada. It is rare when price discrimination can be enforced between separate markets, but when it can it is an overall social benefit. Regards, Don

To: Saturn V who wrote (183389)	2/7/2006 10:36:37 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 186894

re:"Everyone agrees that American medicine is too expensive, and as far as the overall society is concerned most of the Western European,Canadian and Japanese systems work better because the entire society can afford medical care while in USA a significant part of society cannot afford medical care. I say "work better" because the Socialized Medicine Societies are showing better Longevity and Infant Mortality statistics." The same can said of American Education - that it is too expensive and systems in Western Europe, Canada and Japan work better. "The United States in 2000 ranked highest among the six G8 countries for which data was available in terms of expenditure per student at both the combined primary and secondary level"-U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs. Americans pay more. America's health care system may be too expensive, but when you really dig down, the outcome is the same for the USA versus "most of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan". European Americans (born in the USA)live about as long as their "cousins" in Germany, England, Scotland and Ireland. Asians Americans (born in the USA) live about as long as Asians who live in "First World Nations", and Hispanics born in the United States can expect to live just as long, if not longer than their cousins in other countries (whether they live in Cuba or Spain). In fact American born Hispanics have a longer expected lifespan than Non-Hispanic whites - do you think native born Hispanics in the USA have greater access to medical care in the USA than Non-Hispanic whites? One unmentioned advantage of a private based medical system, is that it trains a nation's citizenry not look always to government first when there is a problem. Oddly enough, the way the system works now, those with private health insurance (especially those outside of HMO's) subsidize those without (to each according to his means). Anyway, if the National Government can't get something as important as public education "right", why do you think they'd get Nationalized Medicine "right"? Medicine is a limited commodity even on a National Level. This means that at some time there will be rationing of care - and this means, who gets "rationed" may sometimes come down to either who you know (Socialized Medicine) or how much money you have (Private).

To: Saturn V who wrote (183389)	2/7/2006 10:37:28 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

re:"Everyone agrees that American medicine is too expensive, and as far as the overall society is concerned most of the Western European,Canadian and Japanese systems work better because the entire society can afford medical care while in USA a significant part of society cannot afford medical care. I say "work better" because the Socialized Medicine Societies are showing better Longevity and Infant Mortality statistics." The same can said of American Education - that it is too expensive and systems in Western Europe, Canada and Japan work better. "The United States in 2000 ranked highest among the six G8 countries for which data was available in terms of expenditure per student at both the combined primary and secondary level"-U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs. Americans pay more. America's health care system may be too expensive, but when you really dig down, the outcome is the similar for the USA versus "most of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan". European Americans (born in the USA)live about as long as their "cousins" in Germany, England, Scotland and Ireland. Asians Americans (born in the USA) live about as long as Asians who live in "First World Asian Nations", and Hispanics born in the United States can expect to live just as long, if not longer than their cousins in other countries (whether they live in Cuba or Spain). In fact American born Hispanics have a longer expected lifespan than Non-Hispanic whites - do you think native born Hispanics in the USA have greater access to medical care in the USA than Non-Hispanic whites? One unmentioned advantage of a private based medical system, is that it trains a nation's citizenry not look always to government first when there is a problem. Oddly enough, the way the system works now, those with private health insurance (especially those outside of HMO's) subsidize those without (to each according to his means). Anyway, if the National Government can't get something as important as public education "right", why do you think they'd get Nationalized Medicine "right"? Medicine is a limited commodity even on a National Level. This means that at some time there will be rationing of care - and this means, who gets "rationed" may sometimes come down to either who you know (Socialized Medicine) or how much money you have (Private).