August 17, 2004
Illinois to Help Residents Buy Drugs From Canada, and Afar
By MONICA DAVEY

CHICAGO, Aug. 16 - Opening a new front in the fight over the cost of prescription drugs, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois is preparing to help residents of his state buy cheaper medicines from Britain and Ireland, as well as Canada.

Aides to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, said he would announce on Tuesday that Illinois would create a program, accessible on the Internet, so people could buy 100 of the most common drugs for 25 percent to 50 percent less than in most American drugstores.

Federal authorities say it is illegal to buy drugs from outside the United States, but since early this year, officials in at least four other states - Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Wisconsin - have set up Web sites that link residents to Canadian pharmacies. Expanding the market to Britain and Ireland, Mr. Blagojevich's aides said, will spread demand beyond Canada, where some suppliers have reported shortages of certain drugs.

"The drug companies have pretty aggressively been shutting supplies to Canada, and we want to ensure that the supply will meet the demand," Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman for Mr. Blagojevich, said. "Ultimately, they can't shut down supplies to the world to keep prices high in the United States."

William K. Hubbard, an associate commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration, said Mr. Blagojevich's plan "sounds like yet another expansion of an effort to import unapproved drugs from foreign countries that will be illegal under U.S. law and will raise serious concerns on the part of the F.D.A."

The notion that Illinois was reaching even beyond Canada, Mr. Hubbard said, made matters worse. "The more they go into other countries, the more concerns we have," he said.

Illinois' move is the latest in what has become a political and economic standoff over how Americans buy their drugs: the F.D.A. and drug companies contend that medications from other countries may be counterfeit, mislabeled or otherwise unsafe, while a growing number of local and state officials argue that their residents must be allowed to buy the least expensive drugs.

Illinois plans to contract with a Canadian company to create a clearinghouse of more than 35 approved pharmacies and wholesalers in Canada, Ireland and Britain. The state hopes to first reach the estimated 2.8 million Illinois residents who have no prescription drug coverage. If only 100,000 of them bought drugs through the clearinghouse, they would save as much as $29 million a year, Ms. Ottenhoff said.

Wanda Moebius, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drug makers, said Illinois would not be able to guarantee that drugs said to be from Britain or Ireland really came from there. "We have serious safety concerns," Ms. Moebius said.

The Illinois program is designed for state residents only. Customers will have to provide billing and shipping addresses in the state.

Minnesota, the first state to start a Web site, in late January, had 117,000 visitors to its site by the end of July. Other states are using different methods to press for change. Vermont authorities have announced that they plan to sue the F.D.A. for rejecting their plan to bring Canadian drugs to their residents.

"On this issue, you can see the waves lapping up at the fortress," said Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics. "The question is, What will they do about these waves?"

The F.D.A. considers it illegal to buy drugs, or cause the sale of drugs, from other countries, but so far the agency has not taken legal action against states with Web sites that help people get drugs from abroad.

Mr. Hubbard said he could not say whether the agency might take legal action against Illinois because he had not seen details of its plan.

And any governor who creates such a program should be arrested for violating federal law. And I do not care what party they belong to. This is no different than what the San Francisco mayor was doing when he violated state law and issued marriage licenses to gay couples.

Just as a mayor doesn't have the authority to violate state law, a governor doesn't have the legal right/authority to violate federal law.

Arrest their asses.

Glad my governor didn't see it that way, Magness. I understand -- you're just upset that another BigGovernment BigGiveaway to BigDrug got challenged. Okay, snipes aside, did you notice this bit:

You can do the plan legally. Minnesota did. If it was so obviously illegal, they would arrest people for it, and companies wouldn't collude to do it. It's not as black/white as one rogue mayor ignoring the law and approving marriages only to have them all annulled (just this last week, in fact).

The problem is it is illegal to sell non-FDA approved drugs here, but it isn't illegal for you the citizen to buy them elsewhere in most instances.

And, let's be real -- do we really need the FDA to tell us drugs coming from Ireland and Canada are safe? I, for one, trust Canada and Ireland more than I trust the FDA, especially since I know the FDA is a shill for the food and drug companies. An FDA-specialized attorney once summed it up nicely to me: "Please, it's not like we can expect to *know* what's really in our food." I think that sums up the FDA nicely -- they're simply wankers.

[ 08-17-2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

For me, it's not a matter of trusting the FDA vs Canada.

These countries with socialist medicine are artificially depressing the drug prices and forcing the drug companies to make up the difference on the backs of the American consumer. And these governments are holding the threat of simply ignoring the patents and letting a local company make these drugs. The drug companiess have no real power to stop them. They've got the choice of making a few pennies on the dollar or nothing at all.

I'm not saying that the drug companies are lily white pure. But when comparing them to socialist policies, I'll take the capitalists every time.

If these god-damned socialist countries were not artificially holding down drug prices, the prices would reach their appropriate level.

However, the current situation basically ends up with the American consumer having to fund the cost of all of the drug research and the god-damned socialist countries are essentially stealing the result.

My god-damned socialist country shells out a lot of money to help people pay their inflated drug costs. I'm not weeping for the companies, they make a good profit off of us, too.

The drug companies are making profits here in Soviet Canuckistan. The only reason you pay more down south is because you let them get away with it.

If they will sell in Canada for 60% of what they do here, they will sell here for the same amount.

Threatening to take away R&D is a hollow threat if ever I heard one. Let them! Then, all the new medicine will come out of universities. The big R&D these days doesn't go to necessary drugs anyway, it goes into consumer-demand drugs like Viagara/Lavitra.

Socialistic market practices not only drive costs down, they can also drive them up. We have our fair share of socialistic market practices here as well, ours just drive prices up.

What do you think the FDA approval regs are if not socialism affecting the market? It's still socialistic -- just because the government is in bed with big business rather than whacking big business in the name of "the people" doesn't mean it's not socialism.

The drug companies are making profits here in Soviet Canuckistan. The only reason you pay more down south is because you let them get away with it. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you are getting your drugs at an artificially low cost because *I* end up paying for the R&D costs. And I am sick and tired of having to carry you on my back, you bleeping socialist bleepity-bleeps.

As I said, you are not carrying R&D costs on your back. What you are carrying on your back are the high prices of price fixing that result from your government and the companies colluding to prevent you from shopping for the best price. As a consumer, you become a "price taker" rather than a "price setter" under the classic Smith S/D curve. Socialist is socialist is socialist, and in this case the FDA is as bleepity-bleep and those bleepin bleepity-bleeps.

I wholeheartedly agree with putting a little capitalist common sense to this problem. My question is are you? I don't think you are. You're just spouting the party line. C'mon, use that noggin here. There are a lot of different socialistic hands at work in this market model, and you can't bitch about one and not the others.

[ 08-18-2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

TL, if you want to put some capitalist common sense into the "problem" then the socialist countries should remove their grubby hands from the drug companies and let the drug prices find their natural level.

You do not carry the R&D costs on your back. You are being gouged. Is there anything wrong or illegal about that? No, getting ripped off on a deal is getting ripped off on an a deal... that's sales.

That would be stupid.

You do not carry the R&D costs on your back. You are being gouged. Is there anything wrong or illegal about that? No, getting ripped off on a deal is getting ripped off on an a deal... that's sales.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magness: TL, if you want to put some capitalist common sense into the "problem" then the socialist countries should remove their grubby hands from the drug companies and let the drug prices find their natural level.

That would be stupid. </font>[/QUOTE]No. It's capitalism, apparantly something you know nothing about. ;)

I've come to the conclusion that you must hold stock in AlphaRX. This should be the bottom line:

Drug companies sell drugs in Canada, those companies make a profit, more people can afford drugs.

Drug companies sell drugs in USA, those drug companies make a profit, less people can afford drugs.

I hold NO stocks in any drug companies. I just *HATE* with a burning, firey passion how you socialist countries are raping the American consumer with your blackmailing and artificially low prices.

Price controls are *never* good. Socialism is *never* good. Price controls from a socialist government is nearly unspeakably evil.

You're rant against socialism has absolutly nothing to do with Americans paying higher prices for prescription drugs. The only reason American consumers are being 'raped' is because American consumers won't demand that their government put a stop to BigDrugCo's price gouging.

Not allowing a consumer to shop in a market IS a price control. The FDA is using a price control on the American consumer JUST AS other countries are using price controls -- one lifts the price, one lowers, that's all. One is social welfare, one is corporate welfare -- WELFARE IS WELFARE. You are obviously not reading, or not taking time to understand, the words I am typing.

There are two obvious solutions for the capitalist:
1. Other countries remove price controls, AND
2. U.S. citizens be allowed to shop for products from other countries, just like they are for every other product they buy.

Actually, the above are really two aspects of one solution:
1. Quit price-fixing.

It's funny how you toss the word "socialist" around. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] If you really stopped to think and understand what "socialism" means, you would realize that we have a HUGE aspect of socialism in our U.S. government, no matter what we like to tell our kids when we tuck them in at night.

Look, there are two things here, one of which must be true:
1. You don't understand (whether through lack of ability or effort or refusing to think about it) that BOTH the U.S. and other countries have equal but opposing socialist controls in place for prescription drugs; or

2. You do understand that both the U.S. and other countries have socialist price controls in place, you just don't mind U.S. socialism. And, hey, if that "we can do it but you can't" stance works for you, all the better. This is called the "hypocrital opinion," but hey at it's most fundamental philosophical levels life is hypocrital.

You're rant against socialism has absolutly nothing to do with Americans paying higher prices for prescription drugs. The only reason American consumers are being 'raped' is because American consumers won't demand that their government put a stop to BigDrugCo's price gouging. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not think that the BigDrugCo's are price gouging. They are setting prices according to the market, charging what the market will bear. The market in the US is not controlled by a socialist government's ridiculous price controls.

Not allowing a consumer to shop in a market IS a price control. The FDA is using a price control on the American consumer JUST AS other countries are using price controls -- one lifts the price, one lowers, that's all. One is social welfare, one is corporate welfare -- WELFARE IS WELFARE. You are obviously not reading, or not taking time to understand, the words I am typing.

There are two obvious solutions for the capitalist:
1. Other countries remove price controls, AND
2. U.S. citizens be allowed to shop for products from other countries, just like they are for every other product they buy.

Actually, the above are really two aspects of one solution:
1. Quit price-fixing.

It's funny how you toss the word "socialist" around. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] If you really stopped to think and understand what "socialism" means, you would realize that we have a HUGE aspect of socialism in our U.S. government, no matter what we like to tell our kids when we tuck them in at night.

Look, there are two things here, one of which must be true:
1. You don't understand (whether through lack of ability or effort or refusing to think about it) that BOTH the U.S. and other countries have equal but opposing socialist controls in place for prescription drugs; or

2. You do understand that both the U.S. and other countries have socialist price controls in place, you just don't mind U.S. socialism. And, hey, if that "we can do it but you can't" stance works for you, all the better. This is called the "hypocrital opinion," but hey at it's most fundamental philosophical levels life is hypocrital. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand things just fine. I know that it sounds repetitive. Don't care. Artificially repressed drug prices in other countries force the drug companies to raise prices in the markets that do not have government controlled, artificially low drug prices, with the US being the largest such market.

R&D must be paid for thru revenues. With the articifially low prices in the socialist countries, the drug companies have no place to recoup these R&D costs except the US market.

The socialist countries are not paying their fair shair of the R&D costs, pure and simple. They are living off of the largesse of the American health care consumer. This has to stop.

When the socialist countries stop fixing their drug prices, drug prices world wide will seek their natural level, according to the laws of supply and demand.

Well, answer this question: if there were no price controls in other countries, should the U.S. consumer be allowed to purchase the drugs from other markets?

If your answer is "no" then you got no business talkling about the law of S/D.

Please quit saying "the socialist countries." We are one, too. It's all a matter of degree.

Research & Development of new drugs doesn't help if the people can't afford them. Having the drug to only benefit the wealthy is ludicrous.

Let's talk about the real drugs in Illinois' program. Lavitra and Vioxx, I believe, are two of the primary ones. Lavitra, IIRC, thins the blood for heart patients, and Vioxx is an anti-inflamatory.

These are not designer drugs. These are a basic regiment in the daily pill routine of many senior citizens. A monthly dose of Lavitra in the US runs about $430 -- in canada it runs around $300. The drug company DOES NOT LOSE ANY MONEY in Canada -- it just makes less money. (Note: selling at a loss would be a violation of "anti-dumping" under NAFTA.)

Now, I'm not overly-sympathetic to the BigDrugCo's for that $130, especially considering its senior citizens that they're buggering the money out of. My grandmother happens to be one of them. She can't afford to pay both her meds and her rent, so she'd be out on the street if we didn't provide for her. And, that's a damned shame.

Back to economics. If the US consumer is allowed to purchase from overseas, this whole mess will work itself out. The US BigDrugCo's will likely quit selling so much overseas, forcing your much-deplored pinko socialists to come here and buy the drugs. In fact, this has already begun -- Canada is reporting shortages of some US-made drugs. As for the Irish-made, Canadian-made or other foreign drug company products, well let them sell to their own pinko socialists if they want -- what do you care about some pinko socialist's profit margin or R&D, anyway?

But, at the end of the day, Blagojevich is doing it, and it's legal, and I'm real glad. I'll probably start getting my grandmother's meds filled through Illinois's program once it comes online.

Didn't we just have this discussion? :D

This is correct

Correct but does not factor sunk costs in the economics analysis.


True... and pretty funny. I'd add that Irish, Canadian, and other foreign drug companies will face the same situation as american companies... they all subsidize their R&D through US Sales.

In the end, opening up US purchasing to competition is exactly the right solution. In fact the change with the WI program (more countries than just Canada) addresses my only complaint about the earlier programs and prevents the Drug companies from picking on Canada alone.

This is capitalism at work and should be applauded by us all. As TL said, the FDA saber rattling is pure commercial socialism, and we don't need it. Drug companies don't need protection... WE need protection. They won't like it but opening up the global market will start an arbitrage game that will equalize prices for all... like it or no. For Americans that means reduced prices... for most of the rest of the world that'll mean higher prices.

I'm not quite sure what you two are arguing about here, for once we all seem to think unadultrated capitalism is the solution. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-18-2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

TL, the thing that really rattles me about Vioxx and a similar drug. They are no more effective than Ibuproffen (Motrin) but cost hundreds more because they aren't in the generic bin yet.

My source comes from a 20/20 special report and a friend that is a P.A.

Well, hey, I'm not here questioning what the doctors tell us. Not on this thread anyway. ;) Like any 30-yr-old male I avoid doctors and prescription meds like the plague, anyway.

--*disclaimer* post with nothing constructive to add to discussion *disclaimer*--


OK, dude, I'm really getting sick of having to wipe your bile off've my monitor every time I read through a thread here in CE. Chill out huh?

T.L. That is extremely "Mean Spirited" and down right "UnAmerican", treatment of this nation's "Little Soldiers". "Old soldiers never die they just fade away", now thanks to that R&D the "little soldiers don't even have to fade away. And if anyone takes "Bob's" advice they can turn the "Little fella" into a real "Richard" ;)